Armagh, the seat of the primate of Ireland, was dismissed as a ‘mere village’ in one radical source, but was, in fact, in ‘a very improving state’, partly owing to its linen market, which was rebuilt in 1829.
a thriving, respectable and agreeably situated town ... and in the appearance of the private houses and of the shops there are evidences, not merely of wealth, but of what some would call gentility, for want of a better word.
H.D. Inglis, Ireland in 1834, ii. 273-9.
The borough lay within the parish of Armagh and was controlled by a corporation which had long since wrested power from the inhabitants; there were only a handful of freemen and the franchise lay in the sovereign, who acted as returning officer, and 12 free burgesses. As had been the case throughout the eighteenth century, it was recognized that the archbishop of Armagh ‘reigns paramount’, and his influence was directed through his seneschal, Arthur Irwin Kelly, the long-serving sovereign. The primate met the £5 admission fee on the co-option of burgesses, who were nearly all clergymen of the diocese, while it was usual for the Member returned at parliamentary elections to pay a gratuity of 20 guineas to the town clerk.
Since 1800 the archbishop had been William Stuart, a younger son of George III’s favourite, the 3rd earl of Bute, and he naturally returned anti-Catholic ministerialists. The general election caused by the king’s death in 1820 conveniently allowed the primate to complete the agreement made between him and Lord Liverpool’s government in 1818, whereby the sitting Member, John Leslie Foster*, was replaced by his son and namesake, who had recently come of age.
After the death of Archbishop Stuart by accidental poisoning in 1822, he was replaced by Lord John George de la Poer Beresford, the brother of the 2nd marquess of Waterford and a great benefactor of the town. The new patron brushed aside what he took to be an approach relating to the representation from the former Member Daniel Webb Webber (it was actually a request for ecclesiastical patronage for his son), but clearly intended to find another high Tory, and Sir Robert Inglis, Member for Dundalk, was briefly thought of in this light.
A petition from the corn millers of Armagh for a protecting duty on foreign flour was presented to the Commons by Brownlow, the county Member, 9 Mar. 1827, and one from the tanners for repeal of the leather duty was brought up by William Peel, Member for Tamworth, 20 Mar. 1828. The inhabitants’ petition for improving the state of employment in Ireland was presented by Brownlow, 10 June.
No defender of the Protestant interest in the end came forward to challenge Goulburn at the general election of 1830; but, being unpopular on religious and financial grounds with the inhabitants, his name (he was not present) ‘produced such a burst of furious indignation as effectively stopped the proceedings’, and there were disturbances in the borough.
The inhabitants agreed a petition for Jewish emancipation, which was presented to the Commons by Joseph Hume, 3 Nov., and to the Lords by Earl Spencer, 9 Nov. 1830. A petition calling for reform and the ballot, which was approved at a meeting on 11 Nov., was presented and endorsed by Brownlow, 6 Dec. 1830, when Daniel O’Connell stated that Armagh was ‘completely in the power of a few ecclesiastics’. Another reform meeting on 10 Jan. 1831 prepared a petition which was brought up, 26 Feb., by Brownlow, who presented (but dissented from) one from the tradesmen for repeal of the Union, 29 Mar. The inhabitants’ anti-slavery petition was presented to the Commons, 28 Mar., and to the Lords, 15 Apr. A town meeting on 4 May approved an address congratulating the king on dissolving Parliament and expressing support for the Grey ministry’s reform bill.
In August 1831 Ingestre resigned in order to contest Dublin, where the election had been voided, and his success there allowed the archbishop to oblige another like-minded relation, his brother-in-law Sir John Brydges, who had been unseated for Coleraine.
in the corporation
Qualified voters: 13
Registered freeholders: 8,493 (1821); 9,189 (1831);
