Dungarvan

Social and Economic Profile

A small port at the mouth of the River Colligan situated on Dungarvan Bay in county Waterford, this market town was an important fishing port and military post. The fisheries underwent a revival during the 1830s and more than 4,000 people were employed in the industry by 1837. The port also had a small export trade in corn, butter and cattle. Since the mid-eighteenth century, the town’s population had been preponderantly Catholic. The town was divided between a number of property owners, the largest being the duke of Devonshire, whose estate was, nevertheless, the smallest and most fragmented of all his urban properties. It is estimated that at no time were more than one quarter of Dungarvan’s householders tenants of the duke. The other chief proprietors in the borough were the marquess of Waterford, Thomas Carew, and the Greene family.1Parliamentary Gazetteer of Ireland (1846), ii, 150-2; Daily News, 6 Nov 1849; L. J. Proudfoot, Urban Patronage and Social Authority. The Management of the Duke of Devonshire’s Towns in Ireland, 1764-1891 (1995), 284, 74, 75, 187. Nevertheless, the town was carefully nurtured by the 6^th duke after 1811, and the number of houses increased from 1,182 to 1,570 between 1831 and 1837. Politically motivated improvements, which included the construction of an impressive bridge at Abbeyside, were largely complete by 1835.2P. Power, History of Waterford: City and County (1990), 135; L. J. Proudfoot, ‘Landlord motivation and urban improvement on the Duke of Devonshire’s Irish estates, c.1792-1832’, Irish Economic & Social History (1991), xviii. 5-23; W. Fraher, ‘The reconstruction of Dungarvan, 1807-c.1830: A political ploy’, Decies: Journal of the Waterford Archaeological & Historical Society (1984), xxv. 4-21.

Electoral History

Prior to 1832, Dungarvan was a ‘potwalloper’ borough, though not an entirely closed one. Residence was the main voting qualification and the electorate was overwhelmingly Catholic, the borough’s politics being intimately bound to those of the county.3Dod’s Electoral Facts, 1832-1853; Proudfoot, Urban Patronage, 160, 284. For many years control of the representation had been possessed by Devonshire, but his influence had been exercised in a pragmatic and tactical manner which was circumscribed by the presence of other proprietors, including Lord Waterford, whose political objectives frequently varied.4Proudfoot, Urban Patronage, 74, 188; The Times, 4 Jan. 1834. However, the fifth duke’s ‘active though proxy borough-mongering’ after 1806 ensured more effective control. The seat was held between 1822 and 1832 by George Lamb, brother to Lord Melbourne, and contested only once, in 1830. Thereafter, the cost and violence of Irish politics led the 6^th duke ‘increasingly towards a position of neutrality, whereby he offered no more than what he considered to be his “legitimate” interest’ to approved candidates.5L. J. Proudfoot, ‘The management of a great estate: Patronage, income and expenditure on the Duke of Devonshire’s Irish property c.1816 to 1891’, Irish Economic & Social History (1986), xiii. 32-55 [48], and ibid. Urban Patronage, 288-9. The boundary and franchise qualification for the borough was investigated in 1832, but it was allowed to remain a ‘ruralized borough’, in which the elective franchise extended to both the inhabitants of the town and the freeholders of the manor, a situation which in the past had approached ‘very nearly to universal suffrage’.6PP 1831-32 (519) xliii, 1; HP, The Commons 1820-32. The commission proposed a boundary closely encircling the town and a £10 qualification, thus reducing the electorate to about 210. Upon petition, however, a select committee rationalised the boundary and allowed £5 householders and 40s. freeholders to retain their votes for life: L. J. Proudfoot, ‘Landlords and politics: Youghal and Dungarvan in the 1830s’, Decies: Journal of the Waterford Archaeological & Historical Society (1987), xxxiv. 35-47 [39]. Under the Irish Reform Act, the electorate comprised 40 shilling freeholders (58%), many of whom were impoverished fishermen, and £5 householders (13%).7K. T. Hoppen, Elections, Politics, and Society in Ireland 1832-1885 (1985), 11, 162; Proudfoot, Urban Patronage, 161, 228, 283; PP 1833 (177), xxvii. 289. The constituency seemed ripe for transformation into a ‘radical borough’, in which the town’s Catholic middle class would mobilize electors in pursuit of largely non-divisive goals such as tithe reform and repeal.8The Times, 13 Feb. 1837; 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 [460]; Proudfoot, ‘Landlords and politics’, 35-47. It was a lively arena for competition between moderate and radical Catholic politics and, in 1837, it was stated that ‘few boroughs have ever displayed more curious manifestations [of popular curiosity and indecorum] in electioneering times’. Indeed, by 1857 Dungarvan had become ‘one of the most spirited and independent boroughs in the south of Ireland’.9Proudfoot, Urban Patronage, 284; Freeman’s Journal, 16 Feb., 3 Apr. 1857.

Before the 1832 general election, Daniel O’Connell expressed his determination to secure the return of a repeal member. He solicited John Matthew Galwey, a local merchant and land agent, to stand against Lamb, who was unpopular with independent Catholic voters for his opposition to Sir Richard Musgrave’s motion for an inquiry into the Newtownbarry massacre.10At which 12 people had been killed by yeomanry while protesting against tithes. Shortly before the election, Lamb attended a large meeting of local gentry to petition against tithes, at which enthusiasm for repeal was ‘impossible to repress’.11Freeman’s Journal, 3, 4, 6, 8 Dec. 1832. Galwey was adopted by the National Repeal Union and, on 10 Dec., O’Connell addressed a large crowd in Dungarvan, during which a fracas broke out with Lamb’s supporters. Afterwards, O’Connell urged voters to ‘kick out limping Lamb’ who, as under secretary for the home department, was described as ‘the head peeler of the British empire’, and declared the election to be ‘a battle between England and Ireland – Lamb for England, and Galwey for Ireland’, telling townspeople to put ‘the word “Saxon” on the doors of all who vote for Lamb.’ The marquess of Waterford had informed his tenants that they could vote freely, thus leaving the contest to Whigs and repealers.12Ibid., 13, 14, 15 Dec. 1832; A. Macintyre, The Liberator. Daniel O’Connell and the Irish Party 1830-1847 (1965), 118. A closely contested and violent election ensued, in which both sides were polled their committees and agents. Troops were summoned to place a cordon around the town but local affrays were exacerbated by the presence of rural factions who had, according to one authority, become ‘a powerful destabilizing force which threatened to unhinge constitutional politics’. It was alleged that faction members had murdered one of Lamb’s voters, and when further rioting broke out a party of marines opened fire, killing two men and wounding others.13The Times, 18, 19 Dec.; Belfast Newsletter, 21 Dec. 1832; Kiely & Nolan, 475. Lamb’s victory was largely due to the influence of local landlords, chiefly Sir John Nugent Humble and Devonshire, and of the Catholic clergy, to whom he had been a generous benefactor.14Freeman’s Journal, 19 Dec.; Morning Chronicle, 20 Dec. 1832; Proudfoot, Urban Patronage, 290.

When the seat became vacant upon Lamb’s death in January 1834, O’Connell exhorted voters to discard the ‘prosecuting Whigs’ who had reintroduced coercion and return a repealer. After James Paul Gee of Lisarrow issued a violent Repeal address to electors, O’Connell was urged to put forward his own candidate and declared his support for Ebenezer Jacob, a native of Wexford then resident in Dublin. Thomas Wyse was considered as a government candidate, and there was an unsuccessful local campaign to try and persuade Devonshire to nominate Frederick Ponsonby as Lamb’s successor.15The Times, 9 Jan.; Belfast Newsletter, 10 Jan.; Morning Chronicle, 21 Jan., 4 Feb. 1834; D. McCartney, ‘Electoral politics in Waterford in the early 19th century’, Decies: Journal of the Waterford Archaeological & Historical Society (1982), xx. 39-50 [48-9]; Proudfoot, Urban Patronage, 289-91. Instead, Pierce George Barron, the high sheriff of county Waterford and a scion of a prestigious Catholic family, stood as a ‘strenuous reformer’, advocating the abolition of tithes and an investigation into the merits of repeal. He was, nevertheless, strongly favoured by Devonshire and the Whig administration.16It was alleged that the Irish solicitor-general transmitted funds for his election: Hansard, 25 June 1834, vol. xxiv, cc.840-6, 849; Daily News, 6 Nov. 1849. O’Connell’s private description of Barron as ‘a cold blooded aristocrat’ standing ‘on Tory principles’ alienated some repealers, such as Nicholas Purcell O’Gorman, a former secretary of the Catholic Association, and Galwey, who had considered Barron a better man to represent the trading town than a stranger to the locality. Publicly, O’Connell contended that Barron, though an ‘excellent private gentleman’, would if elected strengthen the hands of the present ministry and frustrate Irish demands.17The Times, 30 Jan.; Galwey to O’Connell, 24 Feb. 1834, O’Connell Correspondence, ed. M. R. O’Connell, v. 107; W. J. Fitzpatrick, The Correspondence of Daniel O’Connell. The Liberator (1888), i. 405, 406; Morning Chronicle, 1 Feb. 1834. In private he confessed to being ‘exceedingly nervous’ about the election and, in addition to donating £100 to Jacob, dispatched his eldest son Maurice to the town, a move that was regarded as critical.18O’Connell to Edward Dwyer, 7 Feb 1834, Fitzpatrick, Correspondence, i, 401; O’Connell to P. V. Fitzgerald, 12 Feb. 1834, O’Connell Correspondence, v. 97-8. Troops were again stationed in the town and some of Barron’s supporters required military protection at the polls. While echoing Barron’s call for the extinction of tithes, on the hustings Jacob spoke more clearly in favour of repeal, before a poll was demanded. Although Barron was favoured by the Catholic clergy, and received the strenuous support of the duke of Devonshire’s agent, the untimely death of Sir Nugent Humble on 13 Jan. deprived him of the votes of sixty of the deceased’s tenants.19R. Huish, The Memoirs, Private and Political, of Daniel O’Connell (1836), 481; The Times, 20 Jan., 17 Feb.; Morning Chronicle, 4, 18 Feb. 1834. The neutrality of the Beresfords also turned the scale in Jacob’s favour, allowing him to head the poll. The bribery employed by both sides was, however, said to have been ‘so gross & undisguised’ that friends of the Irish solicitor-general, Philip Cecil Crampton, attempted to take advantage of this state of affairs by putting him in nomination twenty minutes before the polls closed.20Belfast Newsletter, 18 Feb.; Morning Chronicle, 20 Feb. 1834; Huish, Memoirs, 482; Hoppen, Elections, Politics and Society, 54. They registered six votes for him, apparently in the expectation that after Jacob was unseated and Barron disqualified, Crampton would be seated. A petition was duly lodged on 7 March but after a ‘sharp and bitter contest’ before a committee on 24 April, the entire election was declared void and a new writ issued four days later.21Belfast Newsletter, 21 Feb. 1834; J. O’Connell, Recollections of a Parliamentary Career (1848), i. 98; The Times, 25, 28 Apr.; Derby Mercury, 30 Apr. 1834; CJ, lxxxix. 162, 206, 225; J. Knapp and E. Ombler, Cases of Controverted Elections in the Twelfth Parliament of the United Kingdom (1837), 1-5.

The ensuing by-election was another close contest in which the Beresfords’ neutrality was again said to have assisted the return of Jacob.22Morning Chronicle, 9, 20 May; The Examiner, 11 May 1834. (Another important factor may have been the death of the earl of Burlington on 9 May, which disenfranchised about one hundred of his freeholders.23Morning Chronicle, 12 May; Belfast Newsletter, 16 May 1834. That this worked in the repeal party’s favour was later disputed by John O’Connell, who claimed that most of these electors had promised their votes to Jacob: O’Connell, Recollections, i. 106.) The election was expensive. O’Connell recalled that Jacob put up £600 and he himself donated £500. John O’Connell and Feargus O’Connor were dispatched to the town on an ‘electioneering expedition’, with the latter assuming the role of ‘political godfather’, and it was claimed that O’Connor produced a bogus letter announcing Devonshire’s intention to allow his tenants to exercise their vote freely on the question of repeal.24Freeman’s Journal, 14 July 1841; O’Connell, Recollections, i. 106-8; Macintyre, The Liberator, 107. Barron lodged a petition citing Jacob’s ineligibility and alleging bribery, corruption, and violence, 4 June, but the committee confirmed Jacob’s return, 7 July 1834.25CJ, lxxxix. 352, 446, 448, 467; Knapp and Ombler, Controverted Elections, 6-28; The Times, 8 July 1834.

At the 1835 general election, Jacob retired in favour of the former Irish solicitor-general Michael O’Loghlen, for whom a seat was required. A legal associate and protégé of O’Connell, he had the support of both Devonshire and the repealers. Rumours that Major William Beresford, the cousin of Lord Waterford, intended to stand as a Conservative came to nothing, and O’Loghlen was returned unopposed.26The Times, 6, 15 Jan.; Belfast Newsletter, 16 Jan. 1835. Beresford unsuccessfully contested Hythe in 1837 and later sat for Harwich and Essex North. Although O’Connell subsequently claimed O’Loghlen as ‘a joint’ in his tail, it was anticipated that he would remain independent of his patronage.27Leeds Mercury, 17 Jan.; The Times, 30 Jan. 1835. O’Loghlen’s easy victory belied the uneasy truce existing between Dungarvan’s Whigs, Liberals and Repealers, and the fraught relationship between Devonshire and O’Connell.

O’Loghlen stood twice for re-election, first upon being reappointed Irish solicitor-general in May 1835, and then upon his promotion to Irish attorney-general in September. On both occasions, Galwey took the opportunity to oppose him. Bitterly opposed by both Whigs and Radicals, and with few Conservatives stirring in his favour, he was badly beaten in May.28Proudfoot, Urban Patronage, 289, 284; The Times, 2 June 1835. At the second by-election in September, however, he issued an address which condemned clerical interference in politics and openly criticized O’Connell.29Unknown to O’Connell, 4 Oct. 1835, O’Connell Correspondence, v. 334; Dublin Evening Mail, 4 Sept. 1835. That he was able to make a much more formidable display than was expected demonstrated the extent of the independent Catholic vote in Dungarvan. As The Times commented, ‘it is really astonishing that he could have polled so considerable a proportion of the constituency, when it is considered that he is “at daggers drawn” with the Roman Catholic clergy of the town, who have been indefatigable in their exertions against him’.30The Times, 24 Sept. 1835. Clerical interference at elections at this time is thought to have been in abeyance: J. H. Whyte, ‘The Influence of the Catholic Clergy on Elections in Nineteenth-Century Ireland’, EHR (1960), lxxv. 239-59 [241-3]. Being some way ahead in the poll, O’Loghlen was declared returned, whereupon Galwey protested that the polls had been illegally closed by the seneschal before all his supporters had voted and complained of undue interference in the election by the clergy and Melbourne ministry. His threatened petition, however, failed to materialize, and O’Loghlen retained the seat until he was appointed baron of the exchequer in November 1836.31Bristol Mercury, 26 Sept; The Times, 28 Sept., 8 Oct. 1835.

At the ensuing by-election, Galwey was again expected to contest the seat, a forged election address having been issued in his name. His opponent was John William Power, the young stepson and protégé of Richard Lalor Sheil. The Waterford Chronicle depicted Galwey as an independent voice representing true liberal principles, while detractors claimed that this ‘eternal algebraic quantity’ was now seeking to profit financially from the Beresfords.32The Times, 1 Nov. 1836, 2, 13 Feb. 1837; Morning Chronicle, 10, 17, 20 Feb. 1837. It was alleged that he was brought out of retirement by an offer of £2,000 from ‘an eminent king’s counsel’. Power had been highly spoken of in repeal circles, yet for his candidacy needed the assistance of Devonshire, who, not being able to ‘tolerate the mention of O’Connell’s name in his presence’, expected him to stand as a supporter of the Whig-Radical ministry.33Freeman’s Journal, 2 Dec. 1834, 11 Feb. 1837; The Times, 2, 7, 19 Feb. 1837. Before a volatile and partisan crowd, Power was proposed by the parish priest Nicholas Foran, and spoke in favour of abolishing tithes, municipal reform and the ballot. His support for the Melbourne ministry was conditional not upon repeal, but Ireland’s equality under the Union. Galwey had secured the influence, though not he insisted, the financial backing, of Lord Waterford and, ‘amid a stunning volley of disapprobriation’, presented himself as a fully independent candidate having come forward at the last minute in order to prevent Dungarvan from becoming a close borough. Power won the poll but and on 3 Mar. Galwey petitioned against his return on grounds of undue clerical interference. He failed, however, to enter into the necessary recognizances and the petition was accordingly discharged, 20 Mar. 1837.34CJ, xcii. 114-7, 193; Freeman’s Journal, 16 Feb.; Morning Chronicle, 21 Mar. 1837.

After Power vacated Dungarvan to contest the county at the 1837 general election, Galwey made another effort to win the seat, this time being defeated by the Whig candidate Cornelius O’Callaghan, the son of Viscount Lismore, Member for Tipperary from 1832-35. By 1841, the Whigs had begun to look upon Dungarvan as ‘a harbour of refuge’ for their Catholic candidates and at that year’s election the seat was left open for Richard Lalor Sheil, who had vacated Tipperary, so it was claimed, because he had incurred the wrath of the farming interest by voting for a revision of the corn laws, and was therefore ‘driven to shelter himself beneath the protective wing’ of Devonshire.35Derby Mercury, 23 June 1841. It was later alleged that Sheil pre-empted events by issuing an address while simultaneously negotiating with Lismore to finance him for Tipperary, which would have left Dungarvan open for O’Callaghan: Daily News, 6 Nov. 1849. On the hustings Sheil was nominated by Sir John Nugent Humble and seconded by the parish priest Rev. Jeremiah Halley (1782-1875), whose game of ‘political musical chairs’ was to have an important influence upon elections in Dungarvan over the next thirty years.36Hoppen, Elections Politics and Society, 233, 454-5; ibid., ‘Priests at the Hustings: Ecclesiastical Electioneering in Nineteenth-Century Ireland’ in E. Posada Carbo (ed.), Elections Before Democracy, The History of Elections in Europe and Latin America (1996), 117-38 [127-8]. Before a largely indifferent assembly, he spoke in favour of revising the corn laws and praised the Whig ministry’s policy of securing cheap sugar, corn and coffee. He also promised to improve the harbour by means of a bill allowing grand juries to secure funds for improvements to piers and quays on the sea coast and navigable rivers.37Freeman’s Journal, 7, 10 July 1841. No repealer came forward and Sheil was returned unopposed. (The ease with which Sheil secured the seat was, in part due to the sharp decline in the size of electorate after the octennial certificates issued in 1832 came up for renewal in November 1840. The number of registered electors, which in 1837 had stood at 747, had fallen to 434 by February 1841 and would further decline to 304 over the next four years.38See K. T. Hoppen, ‘Politics, The Law, and the Nature of the Irish Electorate 1832-50’, EHR (1977), xcii. 746-76 [749-55]. For the wider implications of this issue see J. Prest, Politics in the Age of Cobden (1977), 51-71. Most of those disfranchised were the surviving 40 shilling freeholders, whose eligibility had become open to legal challenge, and £5 householders, whose property had acquired a more precise monetary standard after the poor law union was established in March 1839.) 39Hoppen, Politics, Law and the Irish Electorate, 765-6; Freeman’s Journal, 1 Apr. 1839; Parliamentary Gazetteer of Ireland, ii, 151. It was estimated that 120 of the 40s. freeholders had already died by 1837.

When Sheil stood for re-election on being appointed master of the mint in the new Russell administration in July 1846, there was a suspicion that the voters of Dungarvan would be called upon to reject repeal altogether. Sheil was described as ‘one of the most unpopular and least trusted of the Irish Liberal party’, having repudiated repeal by describing it as a ‘splendid phantom’.40The Times, 14 July 1846. The election was therefore regarded by Young Irelanders as ‘the crucial test to show whether O’Connell intended to keep the repeal agitation alive’, being the first since the National Pledge was adopted. O’Connell had, however, already announced his strong support for the new ministry just days before the vacancy.41D. Gwynn, Young Ireland and 1848 (1949), 71; P. Gray, Famine, Land and Politics. British Government and Irish Society 1843-50 (1999), 142-51. The question of whether the voters of Dungarvan would ‘hoist the flag of nationality’ became moot when O’Connell proved reluctant to oppose Sheil, and it has been argued that this was the ‘original cause of the split between Young and Old Ireland’.42Freeman’s Journal, 7 July 1846; Fitzgerald, Correspondence, ii, 379. When the writ was issued O’Connell referred the matter to a committee of the Repeal Association, which claimed to have been informed by repealers in Dungarvan that there was insufficient time and funds to prepare for a successful contest and decided that with only one year of the present parliament to run, it would be imprudent to risk defeat in a constituency that had not even requested a candidate. The Times praised this ‘pragmatic’ response, but O’Connell’s personal reluctance to upset the new ministry was also demonstrated when he informed David Richard Pigot MP, ‘I am glad to tell you that I have stifled all opposition to Sheil in Dungarvan.’43The Times, 16 July 1846; O’Connell to Pigot, 8 July 1846, Fitzgerald, Correspondence, ii, 377-9; Gwynn, 72.

On his arrival in Ireland, Sheil was informed that he could ‘walk over’. He did not therefore attend the election, and, much to the disgust of the electors, avoided facing ‘unpleasant and embarrassing’ questions concerning repeal. The election was a ‘frigid and uninteresting’ affair enlivened only by Halley’s enthusiastic endorsement of Sheil, which encouraged voters to place their faith in the ability of the Whig ministry to achieve ‘perfect equality for Ireland’. Sheil’s seconder, Robert Longan, emphasised his role in opposing coercion and bringing down Peel’s ministry.44Freeman’s Journal, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13 July; The Times, 15, 22 July 1846. Nevertheless, to many in Dungarvan, Sheil was a Whig placeman who had deserted the repeal cause and his unopposed return in what was regarded as a repeal constituency was considered ‘a heavy blow and great discouragement’ to the movement. Local feeling was that a repealer would certainly have been elected but, as The Times commented, ‘those who exercise influence over this class of politicians here did not consider it prudent to oppose what was believed to be the wish of Mr. O’Connell’.45The Times, 15 July 1846. The election subsequently generated heated controversy between the radical Thomas Meagher and O’Connell at a meeting of the National Repeal Association on 13 July, and criticism by William Smith O’Brien MP subsequently helped to rupture relations between the Young and Old Ireland factions.46Ibid. 14 July; Freeman’s Journal, 13, 14 July 1846.

After the full effects of the famine had been felt in Dungarvan in the winter of 1846-7, there was a determination not to allow Sheil a second walkover. A meeting of electors and townspeople called for a Conciliation Hall repealer (i.e. one endorsed by the National Repeal Association) to stand against him at the 1847 general election, but their preferred candidate, John Augustus O’Neill of Bunowen Castle, declined due to lack of funds.47Daily News, 15 July; Freeman’s Journal, 21 July 1847. See his letter to the electors of Sligo and Dungarvan: Freeman’s Journal, 26 July 1847. John O’Connell then wrote to Sir John Scott Lillee in London asking him to stand, but he was reluctant to run against Sheil due to the latter’s reputation as a champion of the Catholic cause and a close friend of the recently deceased Liberator.48See his letter to electors in Freeman’s Journal, 21 Aug. 1847. (John O’Connell was subsequently forced to defend his failure to secure a candidate capable of adding Dungarvan to the 35 Repeal seats secured in 1847.49The Times, 11 Aug. 1847. See O’Connell’s correspondence in Freeman’s Journal, 25 Aug. 1847.) Eventually John Francis Maguire, the proprietor and editor of the Cork Examiner, was prevailed upon by the borough electors to stand as an independent repealer and representative of Irish interests.50He was nominated by a Protestant JP and landowner, Beresford Boate, who had backed Galwey in 1837. The agitation for tenant right had recently undergone a revival and Maguire had acquired a popular reputation by calling for a ‘Tenant League’ modelled on the Anti-Corn Law League.51Gray, Famine, Land and Politics, 151, 171-191. Maguire was assisted by Denny Lane, a prominent Young Irelander, while Sheil received the support of Devonshire and Humble. Upon his arrival in Dungarvan, Sheil faced strong popular opposition and his hotel required a military guard. During a torchlight procession a banner reading ‘Sheil, the chum of Lord John Russell, starved 2,000,000 of the brave Irish people. Down with the phantom!’ was displayed. At the nomination Sheil spoke ‘in the midst of dreadful uproar’ and was questioned about what he had done for Dungarvan. His claim to have influenced the provision of public works in the locality was shouted down by the crowd and he was forced to abandon his speech. Maguire attacked Sheil for abandoning repeal and joining a government which had failed to ameliorate the consequences of the famine.52B. Walker, ‘Politicians, Elections and Catastrophe: The General Election of 1847’, Irish Political Studies (2007), xxii. 1-34 [21]. With the show of hands hugely in favour of Maguire, a poll was demanded, during which there was significant intimidation of Sheil’s supporters.53Freeman’s Journal, 4, 5, 7 Aug.; Morning Chronicle, 7 Aug. 1847. Nevertheless, Sheil won the election by 16 votes, his victory being attributed by the Liberal press to the failure of Conciliation Hall to provide a more suitable candidate. Maguire, meanwhile, attributed his defeat to his late arrival at the contest and the important support offered to Sheil by Rev. Halley.54Glasgow Herald, 16 Aug. 1847; Walker, ‘General Election of 1847’, 21, quoting Cork Examiner, 6 Aug. 1847, The Freeman’s Journal later alleged that ‘agencies of the most vile description had been employed in aid of the government candidate’: 18 Mar. 1851.

On the announcement of Sheil’s retirement in January 1851, Maguire, having built up a strong following amongst the ‘liberal and independent’ electors and secured the backing of Conciliation Hall, came forward for the vacancy on a platform of tenant-right.55Freeman’s Journal, 21 Mar. 1851. The Whigs, however, had created a strong party machine in Dungarvan, through Sheil’s astute employment of government patronage. Thomas Norton, a former chief justice of Newfoundland, and Robert Shapland Carew (MP for county Waterford, 1840-7) were both spoken of, but had both withdrawn before Major Charles Ponsonby (MP for Poole, 1837-47) was selected as the Whig candidate.56Daily News, 4 Feb.; Freeman’s Journal, 6, 14 Feb.; Morning Chronicle, 6, 15 Feb. 1851. The by-election was the first to take place in Ireland under the amended franchise, due to come into force on 15 March, which was expected to increase the number of ‘agricultural electors’ subject to landed influence.57Freeman’s Journal, 21 Mar.; The Times, 24 Mar. 1851. The electorate increased from 215 to 314 before the poll. It was therefore in the interests of the popular party that the election should take place before that day. The government, however, tried to keep the seat vacant for as long as possible. Sheil’s position as British plenipotentiary at the court of Tuscany, for which he was due to take the Chiltern Hundreds, was exempt from the Act rendering vacant the seats of Members who took government appointments. When the writ was moved, the government claimed that it was not clear whether Sheil had actually resigned and wrote to him in Florence for confirmation. As a result of this ‘miserable paltry dodge’, as O’Connell described it, the writ was not issued until 11 March.58Freeman’s Journal, 13 Mar.; Daily News, 12 Mar. 1851.

At the ensuing by-election, a deputation from the Tenant League was despatched to assist Maguire.59Ibid. 22, 25 Mar. 1851. His opponent, Ponsonby, was the eldest son of Lord de Mauley and a nephew of the late viceroy, the earl of Bessborough, and Maguire’s supporters alleged that he had been selected by the political agents of Dublin Castle, being no more than ‘an aristocratic aspirant for parliamentary honours’.60Ibid.13, 14 Mar. 1851. Ponsonby issued his address from Lismore Castle, thus advertising the support of Devonshire, and the Freeman’s Journal portrayed the contest as ‘a trial of strength between the Castle and the country - between Lord Clarendon and Catholic Ireland’, arguing that it represented ‘the first of a series of struggles in which all the constituencies of the country will shortly be engaged’.61Ibid.18 Mar. 1851. With the country in a frenzy over the ecclesiastical titles bill and Russell’s government widely detested by Irish Catholics, Ponsonby announced his intention to vote against the bill, thereby partly diffusing the religious tensions that Maguire had hoped to exploit.62Caledonian Mercury, 20 Mar. 1851.

Despite the presence of large numbers of police and military, a turbulent atmosphere prevailed at the hustings, where Ponsonby was proposed by Sir John Power of Kilfane, ‘a Whig of the old school’, who denounced a resolution by eight local priests calling upon parishioners to withdraw their custom from Whig voters. Frederick Lucas, a founder of the Independent Irish party, and Rev. John Casey were also proposed for the purpose of addressing the electors.63Belfast Newsletter, 21 Mar.; Freeman’s Journal, 21 Mar. 1851, K. T. Hoppen, ‘National Politics and Local Realities in Mid-Nineteenth Century Ireland’, in A. Cosgrove and D. McCartney (eds.), Studies in Irish History (1979), 190-227 [197]. Ponsonby, who declared himself a ‘free-trader’, praised the liberal measures of ministers, but strongly condemned the titles bill, arguing that its provisions would prove tyrannical and impractical. Though a devout Catholic, Maguire again failed to obtain the support of Halley, whose work during the famine had increased his standing with electors. Halley’s declaration of neutrality at this contest, having objected to Maguire’s advocacy of the Queen’s Colleges, was seen as critical factor in depriving Maguire of victory.64J. H. Whyte, The Independent Irish Party 1850-9 (1958), 50; Freeman’s Journal, 20 Mar.; Daily News, 21 Mar.; The Times, 24 Mar.; Liverpool Mercury, 25 Mar. 1851. The landlord interest mobilized in support of Ponsonby, with their agents reportedly being told ‘to move heaven and earth to oust the plebeian’ Maguire. It was claimed that one third of the electors were now under the direct influence of Devonshire, with a further 32 at the command of Sir John Nugent Humble.65Daily News, 22, 24 Mar.; Freeman’s Journal, 21, 22 Mar. 1851. Maguire retired with Ponsonby ahead in the polls and the result was hailed by the Conservative press as a ‘disastrous defeat’ for the Tenant League. Despite three years of preparation and the support of the Liberal press, Maguire had been ‘driven from the hustings by an all but unknown and inexperienced candidate’, who obtained a majority of 75 in a constituency with an electorate of little over 300.66The Times, 24 Mar.; Belfast News-letter, 24 Mar. 1851.

At the 1852 general election a Liberal Conservative candidate, Alexander James Beresford-Hope (MP for Maidstone, 1841-52), came forward to challenge Ponsonby. The Liberals, however, found themselves divided between Ponsonby and the Tenant League candidate Edmond O’Flaherty, the brother of Anthony O’Flaherty, the ‘Irish Brigade’ MP for Galway (1847-57).67See his address to electors, Freeman’s Journal, 3 July 1852. On 29 June, a group of ‘independent’ electors also endorsed Maguire as their candidate. O’Flaherty avowed much the same political creed as Maguire and, following Ponsonby’s withdrawal from the contest, claimed to have secured the support of Devonshire and the Catholic Whig landowners. In order to reconcile the factions, it was agreed that Maguire should withdraw. Beresford, however, then also retired and Maguire was persuaded to make a third attempt to ‘open’ the borough for an independent.68Freeman’s Journal, 29 June, 2, 12 July 1852. Beresford-Hope later sat for Maidstone, Stoke and Cambridge University. A sharp contest ensued, in which all polled ‘with the exception of a few absent and some sick’, resulting in a narrow victory for Maguire.69Morning Chronicle, 5 July; Freeman’s Journal, 8, 12, 15 July 1852; Whyte, Independent Irish Party, 86.

Following the presentation of a petition against his return on the grounds of bribery and treating, 23 Nov. 1852, Maguire agreed to accept the Chiltern Hundreds and avoid a protracted and expensive inquiry before a committee. The petition was withdrawn, 12 April, and a new writ was issued, 15 Aug. 1853.70CJ, cviii. 75, 179, 390; Freeman’s Journal, 15, 26 Aug.; Belfast Newsletter, 29 Aug. 1853. By then, however, O’Flaherty was not in a position to contest the election as he had, unbeknown to Maguire, accepted the position of a commissioner of income tax. The jealousies and divisions within the Independent Irish party engendered by the defection of its leaders to the Aberdeen ministry in December 1852, meant that Maguire, who had adhered to the Independent party line, would now be subjected to the expense of fighting for a seat he had cultivated for five years.71The Times, 27 Aug. 1853. Shortly after Maguire offered himself for re-election, Captain Hugh Brabazon (also called Brabazon Higgins), who had unsuccessfully contested Tyrone in 1852, entered the field, claiming support for civil and religious liberty and tenant right and boasting of having Devonshire’s support. Brabazon’s candidature was considered, even by the Conservative Waterford Mail, to be a violation of O’Flaherty’s compact with Maguire, who had received an enthusiastic popular endorsement upon his arrival in Dungarvan.72Liverpool Mercury, 16 Aug.; Freeman’s Journal, 20, 22 Aug.; Morning Chronicle, 20 Aug.; The Times, 25 Aug. 1853. Brabazon unexpectedly retired from the contest, his credentials as a tenant righter having been publicly questioned and then repudiated by the Tenant League on 24 August.73See letter from ‘A Mayo Priest’, Freeman’s Journal, 23 Aug. 1853; Belfast Newsletter, 29 Aug. 1853. Instead, William Henry Gregory, a former Peelite MP for Dublin, was brought forward by Brabazon’s agent (Macnevin) without the candidate’s ‘knowledge or wish’.74W. Gregory, Sir William Gregory ... Formerly Member of Parliament and Sometime Governor of Ceylon: An Autobiography (1894), 138. As part of this move by ‘the Brigadiers’ to sabotage Maguire, a notice accusing him of having employed bribery at the present and previous election and of having corruptly compromised the subsequent petition against him was presented to the returning officer. It also alleged that Maguire lacked a sufficient property qualification and demanded his disqualification. The high sheriff refused to countenance this and Maguire topped the poll.75Freeman’s Journal, 25 Aug.; The Times, 26 Aug.; Belfast News-letter, 26 Aug. 1853. Gregory, who was on the continent at time, later expressed his surprise that 77 votes should have been cast in his favour.

The campaign against Maguire did not end there, however, and it was later alleged that before the by-election Maguire had consented to support the Aberdeen ministry on condition that O’Flaherty abandoned his petition against him, a charge that Maguire emphatically denied.76The Times, 9, 10, 12 Sept. 1853. For Maguire’s defence of the arrangement with O’Flaherty, see his letter to Freeman’s Journal, 5 Sept. 1853. The matter was abandoned when O’Flaherty disappeared from the office of income tax leaving numerous forged bills of exchange.77Whyte, Independent Irish Party, 162. Nevertheless, an election petition was lodged on Gregory’s behalf on 31 Jan. 1854, and considered by committee between 23 and 31 March, when it found that Maguire’s compromise with O’Flaherty had been perfectly legal and cleared him of treating.78CJ, cix. 9, 59, 147, 168; D. Power, H. Rodwell and E. Dew, Reports of the House of Commons in the Trial of Controverted Elections, ii (1857), 300-35, Freeman’s Journal, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30 Mar., 1 Apr. 1854. For the committee’s special report on treating and the withdrawal of electoral petitions, see PP 1854 (162), (162-I), viii. 469, 613.

At the 1857 general election, William St. Lawrence, the eldest son of the earl of Howth and later MP for Galway (1868-74), was expected to stand as a Liberal with Devonshire’s support. When he declined, the duke was obliged to support Sir John Nugent Humble, who entered the contest at the eleventh hour ‘under the banner of the Whigs’. The Liberal government appeared eager to oust such a prominent independent member as Maguire, whose ‘Tory leanings’ had never been so pronounced.79K. T. Hoppen, ‘Tories, Catholics, and the General Election of 1859’, HJ (1970), xiii. 48-67 [55]. Landlord influence at this election was significant and Humble’s agents were again active in bringing up voters. The rural element within the borough, however, remained a force to be reckoned with and the polling was a riotous affair. Humble’s address had been ‘less than conciliatory to Catholic opinion’ and, much to Devonshire’s disgust, Maguire this time received the full support of Halley, who marshalled Catholic support and secured his return by 19 votes.80Freeman’s Journal, 1, 3 Apr. 1857; Whyte, Independent Irish Party, 170, 122; Proudfoot, Urban Patronage, 292-3; Hoppen, Elections, Politics and Society, 3.

At the 1859 general election Maguire was forced to justify his support for Derby’s reform bill, over which his party was divided, and was again supported by Halley, who was a severe critic of the Whigs’ Italian policy. Humble was prevailed upon by the local Tory gentry to challenge Maguire, against whom the earls of Shrewsbury and Donoughmore had both declared their opposition. In spite of his sympathy for Palmerston, Humble issued an address containing ‘a bold annunciation in favour of the Tory Government’. The Conservatives had made impressive progress on registration work in the borough, and with two Tory supporters in the field Maguire appealed to Lord Naas and Disraeli to render their assistance to his campaign. After ‘certain high influences’ had been brought to bear, Humble was persuaded to retire from the contest by Donoughmore, leaving Maguire to be elected unopposed.81The Times, 15, 27, 30 Apr. 1859; Hoppen, Elections, Politics and Society, 291; Ibid, ‘1859’, 55-6; A. Shields, The Irish Conservative Party, 1852-1868. Land, Politics and Religion (2007), 178.

The electoral landscape of Dungarvan had changed significantly by the time of the 1865 general election. In 1859 Devonshire had sold his stake in the town and Maguire, having survived the collapse of the Tenant League and the Independent Irish party, moved into the Gladstonian fold and stood for Cork city. In his stead, Charles Barry, a Catholic lawyer, came forward as a Liberal. Barry was crown prosecutor for Dublin and Law Adviser at Dublin Castle and had recently served as a commissioner on the Belfast riots inquiry. John Blake Dillon, MP for Tipperary (1865-6), was also approached, but the National Association, not wishing to split the Liberal vote, held aloof.82Freeman’s Journal, 6 July 1865. Despite his close ties to the Liberals, the Irish secretary Sir Robert Peel denied that Barry was the government candidate, though he was widely regarded in Ireland as a Palmerstonian Whig. His Conservative opponent, Major William Palliser, requested military protection after being assaulted by a prostitute on his arrival in the town and forced to abandon his canvass.83Ibid. 3 July; Pall Mall Gazette, 8 July 1865; Hoppen, Elections, Politics and Society, 407. The only other note of controversy came when Barry was accused in parliament by Sir Thomas Bateson of avowing ‘the most ultra-socialist doctrines’ in defending the rights of tenant farmers during a speech in the town, a charge which Barry denied.84Freeman’s Journal, 3, 4 July; Belfast News-letter, 5 July 1865. Barry was elected after a close contest before a now much reduced electorate of less than 250 voters.

Barry held the seat until 1868, when he was unseated by another Liberal (though later a Conservative minister), Henry Matthews. After 1874 the seat was held by home rulers and by 1885, when the seat became a part of the West Waterford constituency, it had become a Nationalist stronghold.