Co. Waterford

Economic and social profile:

A relatively small (21^st in size) yet populous shire, the maritime county of Waterford was the chief dairy producer of Ireland but also cultivated significant amounts of wheat, oats, and barley. The county had large mineral deposits which included abundant quantities of copper, lead, and iron, and slate. Seventeen percent of the population lived by trade and manufactures, the chief ones being glass and cotton. The sea and the navigable rivers Blackwater and Suir were valuable assets for trade and large fishing communities and a thriving export trade were centred on the parliamentary boroughs of Waterford, the commercial centre of the south-east, and Dungarvan.2Dod’s Electoral Facts, 1832-1853, p. 328; Occupations of Ireland 1841, ii. Munster (1995), 77-80.

County Waterford was composed of eighty parishes and in 1841 contained 22 towns and villages (excluding the two parliamentary boroughs), eight of them with more than one thousand inhabitants, the largest of which, Portlaw, boasted a number of industries, including Malcolmson’s world-class cotton mill.3P. Power, History of Waterford: City and County (1990), 135-44, and see Parliamentary Gazetteer of Ireland, iii (1846), 474-86. Eighty-five per cent of the population of 164,346 lived in rural areas: there were 10,729 landholdings above one acre in size, the vast majority of them small farms and cottier-labourer patches. Outside the towns, the population density of 207 persons per square mile was typical for rural Ireland at this time.4J. Burtchaell, ‘The demographic impact of the famine in county Waterford’, in D. Cowman and D. Brady (eds.), The Famine in Waterford, 1845-1850 (1995), 263-89. Almost 97% of the population of the county was Catholic, the Protestant population belonging mainly to the Church of Ireland. The county benefitted from the development of Catholic education and by 1841 the literacy level was the third highest in Ireland, with a large proportion of the population being Irish speakers.5W. E. Vaughan and A. J. Fitzpatrick, Irish Historical Statistics. Population, 1821-1871 (1978), 55; M. B. Kiely and W. Nolan, ‘Politics, Land and Rural Conflict in County Waterford, c.1830-1845’, in W. Nolan and T.P. Power, Waterford: History and Society (1992), 459-94 [465-6]. In spite of a basic division within the rural community between leaseholders and tenants-at-will, who had formal access to the land, and those who did not, the county has been described as ‘a complex social mosaic in which the boundaries between different social strata, particularly those at the lower level of the scale, were considerably fudged.’ Although Waterford benefitted from the recovery of agricultural prices in the late 1820s and 1830s and was not particularly violent in comparison to neighbouring Tipperary and Kilkenny, ‘faction fights’ were a regular feature of markets and fairs.6Kiely and Nolan, 461, 489, and see P. Roberts, ‘Caravats and Shanavests: Whiteboyism and Faction Fighting in East Munster, 1802-11’, in S. Clark and J. Donnelly, Irish Peasants. Violence and Political Unrest 1780-1914 (1983), 64-101. The county underwent significant development in the early nineteenth century as bridge-building improved communications and a harbour was developed at Dunmore East. Railway schemes were developed from the mid-1840s and by the 1860 lines linking Lismore, Waterford and Tramore had been constructed.

In 1851, there were 105 privately owned estates in County Waterford valued at more than £500. More than one third was owned by the 6^th duke of Devonshire (1790-1858), whose well-managed estate centred on Lismore encompassed nearly 28,000 acres of the county, and the 3^rd marquess of Waterford (1811-59), who owned 40,000 acres at Curraghmore. Lord Stuart de Decies of Dromana was the third largest landowner with an estate valued at almost £10,000. Other significant landowners included the absentee landlords George Lane Fox MP (Lismore), Viscount Doneraile (Kilmeaden), Thomas Chearnley (Salterbridge), Sir Henry Winston Barron (Belmont), Sir Richard Musgrave (Tourin), Sir John Keane (Cappoquin), Thomas Carew (Ballinamona) and Lord Cremorne (Templemichael). Significant landholdings were retained by branches of Anglo-Norman Catholic families, the largest being the estate of John Power at Gurteen.7L. J. Proudfoot, ‘The Estate System in Mid Nineteenth Century Waterford’, in Nolan and Power, 519-40 [526-30].

In 1846, the county suffered greatly from the effects of the failure of the potato crop. Food riots broke out in Dungarvan during the autumn and the effects of food shortages became particularly severe in the winter of 1846-7. Unrest was widespread amongst agricultural labourers in several parts of the county, in spite of the efforts of local relief committees and the institution of numerous public works schemes. Between 1851 and 1871, more than 58,000 people emigrated from the county.8Vaughan and Fitzpatrick, Irish Historical Statistics, 309. The falling county population meant that larger farmers, with landholdings valued in excess of £50, moved further into the ascendancy, with middlemen being eliminated from the estate structure and the long-standing rights of cottier-labourers further eroded. Many shopkeepers and merchants also ‘did well out of the famine’. A wave of new rent arrears led to more than 120 estates changing hands through the encumbered and landed estates courts between 1851 and 1864.9J. Burtchaell, ‘A Typology of Settlement and Society in County Waterford c.1850’, in Nolan and Power, 541-78 [560-1]; ibid, ‘Demographic impact’, 268, 277; Proudfoot, ‘Estate System’, 537. The county remained unsettled for some years and experienced agrarian crime above the national average between 1851 and 1860. Yet it remained largely immune from the revolutionary upheavals of 1848 and 1867.10W. E. Vaughan, Landlords and Tenants and Tenants in Mid-Victorian Ireland (1994), 281, 283, 233, 235, 271, 267.

Electoral history:

For many years the representation had been dominated by the two landed magnates, Devonshire, a Whig, and Waterford, a Conservative. The latter’s once considerable influence had lapsed after his candidate’s defeat in the 1826 election. Thereafter the Whig landowner Henry Villiers Stuart, MP from 1826-30, aided by the Catholic Association, began to exert a powerful liberal influence which reflected the growing strength of the Catholic interest and culminated in the election of Daniel O’Connell as his successor in 1830.11See HP, The House of Commons 1820-32.

During the 1830s, Devonshire and Stuart’s (Lord Stuart de Decies from 1839) tenants comprised over one quarter of the electorate. Their influence had been enhanced in 1829 when, as the price of granting Catholic Emancipation, the freehold franchise was raised from 40 shillings to ten pounds, with the result that the number of electors in Waterford fell sharply. In 1815, it is estimated that the county had around 3300 electors, in 1831 the figure was 1,210. The addition of certain leaseholders for years under the 1832 Reform Act raised this figure to 1,448.12B. Walker, Parliamentary Election Results in Ireland, 1801-1922 (1978), 241; PP 1833 (177) xxvii, 289; K. T. Hoppen, ‘The Franchise and Electoral Politics in England and Ireland 1832-1885’, History, LXX (1985), 202-17 [204]. While the Devonshires had once been eager to reassert their political authority in the boroughs, they interfered much less in the county. Support for repeal was widespread among the county’s publicans and large traders, who exerted considerable political influence over artisans and tradesmen. During the early 1840s Waterford was one of the leaders on this issue in terms of contributions to O’Connell’s campaigns. Nevertheless, the county remained relatively orderly, in stark contrast to earlier periods of unrest. Waterford’s large and comfortably off farmers also supported repeal, which was an occasional yet potent factor in parliamentary elections between 1832 and 1847. Nevertheless, the parochial basis of O’Connell’s associations ensured that localism remained a prime feature of county politics.13K. T. Hoppen, Elections, Politics, and Society in Ireland 1832-1885 (1985), 156, 380-1, 481, 369, 29, 96.

At the 1832 general election O’Connell signalled his intention to have two repealers returned. The most pressing issue, however, was the payment of tithes.14Freeman’s Journal, 6 Dec. 1832; J.H. Whyte, ‘Daniel O’Connell and the Repeal Party’, Irish Historical Studies, 11: 44 (1959), 297-316 [310-1]. The Tithe Composition Acts of 1823 and 1824 had, by ending the exemption of pasture, placed a heavier financial burden on the wealthier farmers who formed the majority of the electorate. Mass meetings to discuss tithes had been effectively suppressed by Stuart in his capacity as lord lieutenant in July 1832.15Keily and Nolan, 467-8. A meeting of ‘country gentlemen’ was, however, permitted at Dungarvan: Freeman’s Journal, 8 Dec. 1832. Sensing an opportunity John Matthew Galwey, a Dungarvan merchant and land agent, came forward as a supporter of their abolition. Although an ‘out-and-out repealer’, Galwey, who had failed to capture the Dungarvan seat from the Devonshires nine days previously, had a fraught relationship with O’Connell.16See P. V. Fitzpatrick to Daniel O’Connell, 3 Oct. 1830, O’Connell Correspondence, ed. M.R. O’Connell, iv, 211-2; L. J. Proudfoot, Urban Patronage and Social Authority. The Management of the Duke of Devonshire’s Towns in Ireland, 1764-1891 (1995), 284. Following the unexpected retirement of Sir Richard Musgrave, his supporters successfully solicited Sir Richard Keane to stand as his successor.17Freeman’s Journal, 10 Nov. 1832. Keane, the resident proprietor of the manor of Cappoquin, had attracted local popularity in 1831 for leasing land to the Trappist order at Mount Mellery, and was an extensive employer of agricultural labour.18His father, Sir John Keane (1757-1829) had sat in the Irish and United Kingdom parliaments for Bangor and Youghal as a client of the earl of Shannon. The Whig nominee, Robert Power, had represented the county from 1831-2 but refused to take O’Connell’s repeal pledge. On the hustings, Keane offered no specific pledges but declared qualified support for repeal and church reform. Upon being nominated by Henry Winston Barron, the victorious repeal candidate for Waterford city, Galwey pledged himself to triennial parliaments and vote by ballot, measures that the other two candidates reluctantly agreed to support. Power demanded a poll after a show of hands had favoured his two opponents but, in spite of Galwey’s uncertainty about continuing with his candidacy - having already pledged his own vote to Power - the strength of the local repeal vote and the strict enforcement of electoral obedience by Villiers Stuart meant that Power was narrowly relegated to third place.19Freeman’s Journal, 26 Dec. 1832, Morning Chronicle, 25 Dec. 1832, Hoppen, Elections, Politics, and Society, 161.

The 1835 general election demonstrated the power of O’Connell to destroy the popularity of any repeal candidate who refused to recognize his leadership. In February 1834, Galwey had refused to support O’Connell’s preferred candidate at the Dungarvan by-election. Responding to this “desertion” O’Connell prevailed upon his friend Patrick Power of Bellevue, county Kilkenny, an unconditional repealer and thorough-going reformer to come forward for the county in 1835. Given that William Beresford was also canvassing the constituency for the Conservatives, O’Connell was warned that in the event of a Conservative challenge Patrick Power would have immense difficulty in carrying Galwey through as a second repealer. ‘It would be no harm whatever’, he was advised, ‘to get rid of your fat friend’.20Rev. John Sheehan to O’Connell, 8 Dec. 1834, 7, 14 Jan. 1835, O’Connell Correspondence, v, 223, 250, 258; A. Macintyre, The Liberator. Daniel O’Connell and the Irish Party, 1830-1847 (1965), 116. Musgrave who, though having taken no part in the Repeal agitation, was known be a warm supporter of O’Connell, was therefore persuaded to come out of retirement. Galwey, again nominated by Barron, demanded a poll before being prevailed upon by his election committee to withdraw. The threatened Conservative challenge failed to materialise and the Beresford party did not make an appearance at the proceedings leaving Musgrave and Power to be returned unopposed.21The Parliamentary Test Book for 1835, 131; The Times, 8 Jan. 1835.

Following the pact between O’Connell and the Whig ministry in March 1835, reform rather than repeal tended to determine elections in Waterford. The tithes question was less pressing after the Melbourne ministry imposed restraints on collections, and it was effectively answered by legislation in 1838. Consequently, following the unexpected death of Patrick Power on 25 August 1835, Henry Villiers Stuart’s brother William, who had been spoken of for the seat in January but not selected, was brought forward as the reform candidate by Nicholas Power, the brother of the late member.22The Times, 2 Dec. 1834; The Examiner, 30 Aug 1835; North Wales Chronicle, 29 Sept. 1835. Following some debate over the propriety of obtaining pledges from an absent candidate, Stuart’s reputation as a ‘thorough-going anti-Tory’ was sufficient to see him returned unopposed.23The Times, 25 Sept. 1835; Rev. John Sheehan to O’Connell, 8 Dec. 1834, O’Connell Correspondence, v, 223. Galwey made an address to the county electors, but subsequently became engaged in the contest for Dungarvan and was unable to stand, see his letter to electors, The Times, 25 Sept. 1835. Shortly before the 1837 general election Musgrave announced that he would retire. In his place, John William Power of Gurteen, the stepson and protégé of Richard Lalor Shiel, was adopted as the reform candidate with O’Connell’s tacit support. Power had defeated Galwey in the Dungarvan by-election the previous February. After a putative Conservative challenge was deterred by a large Liberal meeting at Dungarvan, he and Stuart were elected unopposed.24Morning Chronicle, 29 July 1837. In July 1840 Power, having recently married, retired into private life. In his stead the reformers adopted Robert Shapland Carew, the eldest son of Robert Carew, 1st Baron Carew (MP for Wexford), who was returned unopposed. At the 1841 general election, the sitting members had a walkover, the result being optimistically interpreted as a positive endorsement of repeal.25The Times, 15 July 1841; Freeman’s Journal, 14 July 1841.

It should be noted that the size of the county electorate fluctuated significantly in this period. The Irish Reform Act had brought with it registration procedures which placed the franchise upon a highly unpredictable base. The number of county voters rose slowly to a peak of 1,675 in 1839-40. Thereafter it fell by half before falling even more sharply to 321 in 1849-50, as octennial certificates granted in 1832 and 1840 expired.26Hoppen, Elections, Politics, and Society, 8; Ibid., ‘Politics, the Law, and the Nature of the Irish Electorate 1832-1850’, English Historical Review, 92:365 (1977), 746-76 [749-55]. By this time the county had suffered the impact of the great famine, which became particularly intense during the winter of 1846-7. As Ireland anxiously awaited the result of the harvest in 1847, the general election of July produced a remarkable result which demonstrated the degree to which county politics had become radicalized by the emergency. By the time of the nomination no repealer had yet to enter the field, it being thought that the influence of the Liberal landowners afforded them little hope of success. On the hustings, however, Robert Keating of Garanlee, county Tipperary, a member of the Old Ireland party was proposed as a Conciliation Hall Repealer by Musgrave. Upon Keating declaring for repeal and tenant-right, Stuart expressed his intention to resign rather than enter a contest, whereupon Carew declared that, as the junior partner, he should give way in order to secure the return of Stuart. The repealers, sensing hesitation among the Liberals and emboldened by Musgrave’s scathing attack upon the government’s response to the famine, then proposed a second candidate, Nicholas Mahon Power of Faithlegg, younger brother of the late Patrick Power. He was a wealthy Waterford merchant, ‘said to be the richest commoner in Ireland’, and a generous patron of the Catholic Church.27‘John Aloyisus Blake’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004), vi, 102. Despite having already proposed Stuart as a candidate, Power was quick to proclaim his devotion to repeal. With two repealers in the field Stuart and Carew withdrew, leaving Keating and Power who, ‘five minutes before, never dreamt of becoming a member of Parliament’, to be returned unopposed. That two representatives of prominent landed families could be persuaded to retire without a struggle in order to make way for two largely unknown men (neither of whom had made an address, employed an agent or conducted a canvass) is indicative of the overwhelming strength of repeal at this time.28Freeman’s Journal, 13, 14 Aug. 1847; Daily News, 14 Aug. 1847; Morning Chronicle, 14 Aug. 1847, B. Walker, ‘Politicians, Elections and Catastrophe: The General Election of 1847’, Irish Political Studies, 22:1 (2007), 1-34. [17] Nevertheless, in spite of Liberal fears that the repealers were seeking to monopolise the representation in the south, it was anticipated that the two new members would support the ministry.29G. L. Bernstein, ‘British Liberal Politics and Irish Liberalism after O’Connell’, in S. Brown and K. Miller (eds.), Piety and Power in Ireland, 1760-1960 (2000), 43-64 [50].

This pattern of political support did not survive the famine, as O’Connellism gave way to politics of a more fragmented, defensive and localised nature which was dominated by wealthy farmers and the Catholic church. The 1852 general election witnessed the first county contest for twenty years. The Irish Franchise Act of 1850 had swept away most of the freehold qualifications and regularised the registration system embodied in the Reform Act. Registration now became automatic, and the franchise was placed on the basis of occupancy of property rated to the poor law at twelve pounds in the county.30Hoppen, ‘Nature of the Irish Electorate’, 766. As a consequence, the size of the electorate rose almost tenfold to more than 3,000 electors. The 1852 election was a tightly contested yet orderly affair. Nicholas Mahon Power offered again, with the support of the Liberals. He was joined by John Esmonde, the son of Sir Thomas Esmonde of Pembrokestown, MP for Wexford, a young Catholic protégé of Musgrave, who had been adopted as an Independent Oppositionist when Keating relinquished his seat to contest Waterford city. The Conservatives fielded Richard Hely Hutchinson, the youngest brother of the 3^rd earl of Donoughmore, who enjoyed the backing of the former Whig MP Sir Richard Keane. The campaign was characterized by dissension within the Liberal ranks and Power was charged with having behaved ‘selfishly and parsimoniously’ towards his colleague during the canvass.31Freeman’s Journal, 8 July 1852; The Times, 20 July 1852. Esmonde later admitted that he had faced an uphill struggle and could not have been elected without the support of the Catholic clergy, who for the first time since 1832 were widely engaged in electioneering.32Freeman’s Journal, 13 May 1859; J. H. Whyte, ‘The Influence of the Catholic Clergy on Elections in Nineteenth-Century Ireland’, English Historical Review, 75:295 (1960), 239-59 [243-4]. Indeed, the Catholic question loomed large in this election as a consequence of the Ecclesiastical Titles Act passed in 1851. Liberal electors were reminded of the recent ‘atrocities’ committed against Catholicism in England to which ‘both the present and late government’ were accused of being accessories.33Freeman’s Journal, 13 July 1852. Anti-Catholic riots had taken place in Stockport shortly before the election, see Whyte, ‘Influence of the Catholic Clergy’, 243-4. In spite of the active role taken by Catholic priests, the pressure placed upon some tenants to support Hely Hutchinson by ‘renegade Whig’ landlords, such as Keane, met with some success.34Freeman’s Journal, 28 July 1852. Owing to the new system of polling instituted by the Franchise Act, with four polling places being used instead of one, there was much confusion over election tallies and press reports initially placed Hely Hutchinson ahead of Esmonde in the poll, though he was later relegated to third place.35Morning Chronicle, 27 July 1852; The Times, 27 July 1852; Hoppen, Elections, Politics, and Society, 389. The Conservative press, however, believed he had grounds for challenging the result and a petition against the return was presented to the Commons, 19 Nov. 1852. The subsequent election committee examined ten poll books for cases of impersonation and struck off three ineligible votes, 2-4 Mar. 1853, but this was insufficient to alter the result and Esmonde was confirmed in the seat.36CJ (1852-3), cviii, 36, 301, 309; Belfast News-Letter, 28 July 1852; D. Power, H. Rodwell and E. Dew, Reports of the House of Commons in the Trial of Controverted Elections, ii (1857), 84-95. For the special reports regarding the alteration of polls see PP 1852-3 (348), (389), xix, 329, 337.

In spite of Hely Hutchinson’s narrow defeat, the Conservatives’ electoral fortunes in county Waterford had been steadily improving since the accession of the Derby ministry in February 1852 and Lord Naas’s appointment as Irish Secretary. Naas had long been an effective manager of the Conservative party in Ireland and he was quick to establish a regular (though secret) system of funding for candidates which, in Waterford, relied upon large donations from the marquess of Waterford. In 1852 it was noted that ‘owing to the great territorial influence of the Marquis of Waterford the Ministerialists made a very formidable struggle in this county’.37Hoppen, Elections, Politics, and Society, 301-2; Morning Chronicle, 27 July 1852. Shortly before the nominations for the 1857 general election it was rumoured that William Christmas, a former member for Waterford city, would stand as a Conservative and that another candidate would run under the auspices of George Henry Moore of the Independent Irish Party, who had formed an anti-Whig alliance with the Conservatives. When canvassing began, an ‘English aspirant’ named Munster was also in the field. In the event, however, the sitting Liberals, Nicholas Mahon Power and John Esmonde were returned unopposed.38The Times, 4, 7 Apr. 1857; Freeman’s Journal, 4 Apr. 1857; Hoppen, ‘Tories, Catholics, and the General Election of 1859’, Historical Journal, 13:1 (1970), 48-67 [49].

At the 1859 general election the Conservatives hoped to gain a foothold. Their candidate, Walter Cecil Talbot, was the second son of the earl of Shrewsbury and the nephew of the 4^th marquess of Waterford, John de la Poer Beresford, who had succeeded to the title in March 1859 and was regarded as a ‘fiercer politician’ than his brother had been. His subsequent intervention with tenants on an estate where “the feudal spirit was still alive” was cited as a significant factor in the poll.39Freeman’s Journal, 12 May 1859; Vaughan, Landlords and Tenants, 106. During the election, the Conservatives spent £800 and were even successful in obtaining some measure of support from the Catholic clergy.40Hoppen, ‘General election of 1859’, 66, 67. Catholic disquiet over Palmerston’s Italian policy, and appreciation for Derby’s concessions to Catholic military and prison chaplains, provided Lord Naas with an opportunity to canvass support from a clergy which was divided in its attitude towards the Liberals.41 Freeman’s Journal, 13 May 1859; The Times, 13 May 1859; Hoppen, Elections, Politics and Society, 281, 291, Ibid., ‘General Election of 1859’, 51, 54, 64; Whyte, ‘The Influence of the Catholic Clergy’, 252. Talbot stood as an independent Conservative and did not bind himself to support Derby. Though eager to milk the sympathy of the Tory gentry over the recent death of his uncle, he denied being ‘the nominee of the house of Curraghmore’. Ultimately, however, his success was probably due to confusion in the Liberal ranks over the candidacy of Nicholas Mahon Power. For some time after the dissolution, Power had failed to issue an address or indicate his intention to seek re-election, with the result that it was widely supposed that he would stand down. When Ralph Bernal Osborne, the MP for Dover, was suggested as a candidate, however, Power declined to make way. Shortly before the election Power finally issued an address but did not canvass. He occupied the field until the day before the election, but in spite of preparations being made to support his candidacy, he withdrew on the eve of the nominations, much to the consternation of his followers, who denounced the ‘snug arrangement’ that appeared to have been made with the Conservatives.42The Times, 13 May 1859. It was also suggested that “the throwing of female influence – which now controls a Catholic interest always on the Liberal side – into the scale for Talbot and Esmonde” caused Power to retire. Freeman’s Journal, 13 May 1859. His reasons for retiring were regarded as ‘profoundly mysterious’, yet at 72 years of age it seems likely that he did not relish what promised to be a tightly fought contest. The alleged compromise with Talbot may have been prudent given the reported ‘desertion from the popular ranks of the interest of the Gurteen estates’, and Esmonde and Talbot were duly returned unopposed.43The Times, 13 May 1859; Freeman’s Journal, 14 May 1859. For Irish Liberals, one of the most annoying outcomes of the general election was to see one of ‘the strongest of the strongholds of popular power in the south of Ireland’ handed over to the Conservatives without any apparent cause. While the loss was dismissed as a consequence of ‘local accidents or incidents’, national issues did play some role in the Conservatives’ success. Talbot had made much of nebulous promises made by the Derby ministry to bring forward a tenant-right bill, and the unpopularity of Lord John Russell in Ireland compelled Esmonde to defend having voted for Russell’s resolution scuppering Derby’s reform bill.44Daily News, 13 May 1859; Freeman’s Journal, 13 May 1859; The Times, 14 May 1859; Hoppen, ‘General election of 1859’, 52.

In 1865 Talbot retired, apparently without explanation. His Conservative replacement was John Henry de la Poer Beresford, earl of Tyrone and the eldest son of Lord Waterford. With Catholics by no means as wedded to the Liberals as they once had been, Tyrone’s expression of liberal sentiments at the hustings were enough to secure his unopposed election alongside Esmonde. When Esmonde was appointed as a Lord of the Treasury in June 1866, necessitating a by-election, he was re-elected without opposition.45The Times, 27 Dec. 1866, 8 June 1866. When, however, Tyrone succeeded to his father’s title that November, the Liberals saw an opportunity to end the divided representation of the county by bringing forward Edmond De La Poer, the son of the late John Power of Gurteen (MP, 1837-40). The bishops and clergy of the diocese enthusiastically embraced the candidate, who had been made a papal count in 1864, and a campaign was systematically organized throughout the parishes.46T. O’Shea, ‘The County Waterford By-Election of 1866’, Decies: Journal of the Waterford Archaeological & Historical Society, 58 (2002), 61-72 [64, 65]. Talbot returned to contest the seat for the Conservatives and a fierce contest was anticipated, the Waterford News declaring that ‘the standard of ’26 is again unfurled’. The nominations were an unruly affair. At the reading of the writ a dispute arose as to which candidate should be proposed first, each side seeking the advantage of reply. The Liberals suspected that Talbot had entered the election merely to keep the seat warm for Lord Charles Beresford, who was shortly to come of age. Accusations of slander and bribery were made by both sides. Sir Edward Kennedy’s unfounded accusation that De La Poer was a Fenian ‘conspirator’ reflected tensions felt by sections of the landed gentry following the suspension of Habeas Corpus in February, but did little to further the Conservative cause.47Freeman’s Journal, 17, 19 Nov .1866. The election, coming upon the heels of the recent bitter contest in Tipperary, was portrayed by John Bagwell, Liberal MP for Clonmel, as ‘a contest between the people and the Tory aristocrats of the county’. The extension of tenant right and resistance to the extension of pasture farms were key issues for Liberal supporters in a county where land under tillage was steadily shrinking.48By 1876, County Waterford was ranked only 27th in Ireland in terms of its land under tillage. Vaughan, Landlords and Tenants, 267. Talbot again represented himself as ‘an independent supporter of the Conservative Government’ and once more hinted that the ministry was preparing legislation to reform relations between landlords and tenants. With the show of hands being in favour of the Liberal candidate, Talbot asked for a poll.49Freeman’s Journal, 27 Dec. 1866.

During the ensuing contest, De La Poer came out firmly in favour of church disestablishment and denominational education, and strongly advocated an endowment for the Catholic University. A strong sectarianism characterized the election and voters at the Liberal tally-room were reportedly exhorted to ‘vote for De La Poer in ’66 as you did for Lord [sic] Stuart in ’26 … Vote for your country and your religion’. The presence of a strong military contingent and seventeen stipendiary magistrates to supervise the conduct of the election were insufficient to prevent violent clashes between the parties. The authorities received advance warning from Talbot’s agents that voters would be molested on their way to vote and transport was sent to out-lying districts to bring in remoter constituents. Troops of cavalry were requisitioned to assist the constabulary and escort voters to the polling places, yet about 120 tenants of the Stradbrooke and Chearnley estates en route from Clonmel were unable to reach Dungarvan after being attacked and dispersed.50Belfast News-Letter (Waterford Mail), 1 Jan 1867, PP 1867 (216) lvi, 237. On polling day, 29 Dec, as tenants from the Palliser estate were escorted to the court house, the 16^th Lancers charged a hostile crowd of about 500 people on Dungarvan bridge and two men were killed. Outbreaks of violence were also reported at Kilmacthomas and Glenahiery and an unruly atmosphere prevailed at Carrick-on-Suir, where heavily-guarded tenants from Curraghmore were polled and ‘every second vote’ was ‘subjected to the qualification oath’. In Dungarvan, it was reported that polling in one of the booths ‘was remarkable for the gross irregularity and intimidations’ shown toward Talbot’s voters and proceedings had to be abandoned. The Belfast News-letter claimed that one third of the electors had been prevented from polling.51Belfast News-Letter, 1 Jan. 1867. The defeated Conservative candidate presented a petition to the Commons, 18 Feb. 1867, claiming that rioting had prevented his supporters from polling and that the Catholic clergy had exercised an undue influence. Esmonde’s election, however, was upheld by the investigating committee, who determined that a case of general riot was not proved and that there was no evidence of corrupt practices, 3 Apr. 1867. 52CJ (1867), cxxii. 59, 156; Freeman’s Journal, 23 Mar. 1867; PP 1867 (205), (205-1) vii, 285, 431.

De La Poer hold his seat until 1873, by which time the period of Liberal dominance in the south of Ireland had begun to wane, and Waterford had become a battle ground between Liberals, home rulers, and Conservatives. Patrick Joseph Power’s success at a by-election in 1884 confirmed the inexorable rise of Parnellism in the south of Ireland.