Economic and social profile:
Youghal was a post and market town, a sea-port, and ‘the practical capital’ of south-eastern Cork. Standing on the estuary of the Blackwater, it enjoyed the natural advantage of facing the ports of south-west England, with which it had an extensive trade in agricultural produce and manufactured goods.In 1835 exports were valued at £215,316 and consisted chiefly of grain and livestock; imports, mainly coal and provisions, were valued at £28,310: Parliamentary Gazetteer of Ireland, iii (1846), 579. Although the corporation had developed the town’s wholesale grain markets and improved its quays and harbour between the 1770s and 1820s, a harbour bar prevented ships from entering at low water and, by 1826, the port had been outstripped by Cork and begun to decline. Its brickmaking and woollen industries also decayed, yet the town retained a flourishing fishing fleet, a long-established stained glass industry and a modest porcelain business.H. Wain, The History of Youghal (1965), 36-7; D. Dickson, Old World Colony. Cork and South Munster 1630-1830 (2005), 434; Barry & Hoppen, ‘Borough Politics’, 110. Nearly a quarter of the population were dependent on these trades and about 40% were involved in the provision and direction of manual labour. Nevertheless, further development of the town’s economy after 1840 was hampered the lack of both steam-boat and railway communication.Parliamentary Gazetteer, iii, 579, 581, and see A.R. Orme, ‘Youghal, County Cork – growth, decay, resurgence’, Irish Geography, v (1966), 121-49.
Electoral history:
Youghal was a corporate borough, and although its charters granted no right to send MPs to parliament, two members had been returned by the self-elected corporation between 1374 and 1801. Thereafter, the borough had returned one member to Westminster. The unreformed franchise had been limited to the aldermen, burgesses, and freemen of the corporation, whether resident or non-resident, and voting was largely controlled by the aldermen, who were responsible for admitting the freemen by ‘special favour’. In 1831, there were 263 burgesses and freemen of the borough (2.7% of population).E. Johnston-Liik, History of the Irish Parliament 1692-1800, ii (2002), 373. In 1833, a parliamentary commission investigated the Irish corporations, including that of Youghal (7-11 Sept.), but they were not reformed until 1840. See The Times, 14, 25 Sept. 1833; PP 1835 (23) (24) (25) (27) (28) xxvii. 1, 51, 79, 199, xxviii. 1 [297-308].
In the years before 1832, the Whig 6th duke of Devonshire ‘reigned lord paramount over this closest of close boroughs’.Daily News, 17 Apr. 1849, and see Johnston-Liik, History of the Irish Parliament, ii, 212. Under the Irish Reform Act, however, the corporation lost the power to create electors and a residential qualification was imposed on former freemen (in 1831, 87 had been resident, and 176 non-resident), whilst the borough franchise was extended to include all householders who either occupied premises worth at least £10 or who paid at least £10 a year in rent, with provision being made to retain for life the voting rights of existing £5 and forty-shilling freeholders.L.J. Proudfoot, ‘Landlord Motivation and Urban Improvement on the Duke of Devonshire’s Irish Estates, c.1792-1832’, Irish Ec. and Soc. History, xviii (1991), 5-23 [18-9]; HP Commons, 1820-32: ‘Youghal’, and see I. d’Alton, Protestant Society and Politics in Cork 1812-1844 (1980), 103-5. The revised boundary decreased the size of the borough, though it was not to be as compact as the commissioners had recommended.PP 1831-32 (519) xliii. 1 [193-9]; PP 1831-2 (631) (635) v. 3, 5; HP Commons, 1820-32: ‘Youghal’. The area of the town was 341 acres, and the parliamentary borough 212 acres. The number of qualified electors increased to 413 (4.3% of total population), including 326 newly-enfranchised £10 householders. However, ‘the complexities and confusions of the registration and valuation systems established by the Irish Reform Act’ meant that only 297 voters were registered before the 1832 general election.L.J. Proudfoot, Urban Patronage and Social Authority. The Management of the Duke of Devonshire’s Towns in Ireland, 1764-1891 (1995), 282-3; Barry & Hoppen, ‘Borough Politics’, 108.
The Reform Act also ensured that elections would be more closely related to the social and political characteristics of the town. While merchants and shopkeepers were enthusiastic supporters of ‘advanced’ candidates and the town’s many publicans were a powerful element in O’Connellite politics, artisans were much less inclined to radicalism and the influential presence of Protestant voters brought the constituency within the reach of the Conservatives.Barry & Hoppen, ‘Borough Politics’, 118; Hoppen, Elections, Politics and Society, 40, 42-4, 50, 52. Conservative voters’ mean local rating ‘was noticeably, if not dramatically, higher’ than that of the Liberals, but Conservative voters of all classes were distinctly ‘more prosperous than their O’Connellite equivalents’: Hoppen, Elections, Politics and Society, 40, 42-4, 50, 52. As aristocratic hegemony declined party politics revived; a ‘dissatisfied anti-emancipation element in the town was given a freer rein’ as popular Protestant toryism was freed from the rigid control of patrons, and the curtailment of Devonshire’s political authority created the possibility of success for organized and popular Conservatism, underpinned by the emergence of a ‘distinctly Protestant political consciousness’.K.T. Hoppen, ‘Roads to democracy: electioneering and corruption in nineteenth-century England and Ireland’, History, 81 (1996), 553-71[561]; d’Alton, Protestant Society and Politics, 141, 171, 164; K.T. Hoppen, Elections, Politics, and Society in Ireland 1832-1885 (1984), 310. A Brunswick Club was formed in the town in 1828. Consequently, successive political contests in the town involved ‘real sectarian rivalry rather than the reinforcement of existing sectarian dominance.’Proudfoot, Urban Patronage, 284, for Tory election ballads of 1835 and 1837, see ibid., 311. Corruption, however, also played an important role and the town was known as one of the most ‘notoriously venal’ of the small southern boroughs, and a hotbed of local politics (Morgan O’Connell once lamented ‘That dirty little town of Youghal was more expensive to me than the County of Meath’, and it was said that ‘Youghal voters kissed their thumbs instead of the Bible while taking the bribery oath’). In 1865, Youghal was still thought of as being ‘what such small boroughs usually are – a vehicle for extorting money and drink from aspirants for political fame’.Macintyre, The Liberator, 106-7; Hoppen, Elections, Politics, and Society, 290, 77; Pall Mall Gazette, 5 June 1865; J. O’Connell, Recollections and Experiences during a Parliamentary Career from 1833 to 1848 (1849), ii, 148-9. In 1835, Daniel O’Connell claimed that ‘fifty pounds was given in many instances for a vote’: Freeman’s Journal, 4 Feb. 1835, and see ibid., 7 Aug. 1837.
The opening of the borough by the Reform Act strengthened the hand of the Irish ‘popular interest’, then campaigning for repeal and the abolition of tithes. Daniel O’Connell confidently predicted that the town was ‘certain to return a repealer’ in 1832 and issued an address calling for the new electors’ support.Freeman’s Journal, 20, 21, 23, 28 Nov. 1832. Believing that Youghal was a better prospect than neighbouring Dungarvan, he proposed his son, John O’Connell, for the seat, and announced his candidacy by denouncing the Devonshire monopoly and recommending a candidate ‘too young to have earned for himself a name’.O’Connell to Thomas Coppinger, 26 Nov. 1832: Freeman’s Journal, 30 Nov.; The Times, 7 Dec. 1832; Freeman’s Journal, 8 Dec. 1832; Whyte, ‘O’Connell and the repeal party’, 300. For John O’Connell’s address, see Freeman’s Journal, 12 Dec 1832. Devonshire’s nominees, including the sitting member, George Ponsonby, a kinsman of the duke and Earl Grey’s brother-in-law, were condemned as ‘Whigs, placemen, churchmen, and, by habit, Englishmen’.Freeman’s Journal, 20 Nov. 1832. Ponsonby was a great-grandson of the 3rd duke of Devonshire, his brother was the Bishop of Derry: HP Commons, 1820-32, vi. 832-4; iii. 719. Daniel O’Connell set the tone for the contest when he launched a vituperative personal attack upon Ponsonby for having dismissed repeal as ‘insane’.‘This stupid dolt – this specimen of stupidity personified – this very personification of stupidity – this kind of wig block stuffed, and ready to be wheeled to the right about face when the wires are pulled, to open his mouth and to shut it when he is commanded – this drivelling dolt has the impudence and folly to call us insane.’: Morning Chronicle, 6 Dec. 1832. The government was aware that the borough might only be retained if ‘properly managed’, yet Devonshire was reluctant to cooperate with the Castle. He was advised by his auditor that his candidate had no hope of success because the Protestant freemen merchants whom he controlled risked ruin if they opposed O’Connell and would afterwards expect to be compensated. Ponsonby therefore declined what he regarded as an ‘unwinnable contest’ with O’Connell, and abandoned the borough.HP Commons, 1820-32: ‘Youghal’; Proudfoot, ‘Landlord Motivation and Urban Improvement’, 11; Barry & Hoppen, ‘Borough Politics’, 113 (n. 38); Proudfoot, Urban Patronage, 284. His place was taken by a scratch Conservative candidate named Roger Green Davis, of Drumdish House, Killeagh, Co. Cork, a local Protestant JP and grand juryman.The Times, 11 Dec. 1832.
Communal tension rose after Dominick Ronayne, a prominent local radical, was arrested on charges arising from the tithe agitation and during polling ‘the violence of the O’Connellite mob’ forced Davis to withdraw after only 27 votes had been cast. Davis alleged that large bodies ‘of strangers from the adjoining country’ had entered the town and acted ‘on an apparently concerted system of violence’ to assault his supporters, who had ‘yielded to their terror, and declared themselves afraid to face the dangers of proceeding to the hustings’. In the belief that the military force provided was insufficient to preserve order beyond the immediate vicinity of the polling place, Davis proved unwilling to risk further violence and declined any further contest.Proudfoot, Urban Patronage, 288; Morning Chronicle, 24 Dec. 1832. Nevertheless, the Conservatives, having mounted only a token challenge, did not contest the result.
Before the 1835 general election, Daniel O’Connell had considered cementing his alliance with the Whigs by proposing his son for Cashel, thereby surrendering Youghal to a well-connected Liberal. When this proved untenable, John O’Connell persuaded the Whig chief secretary, Edward Littleton, to intervene and ascertain that Devonshire’s agent, Colonel William Curry, would not openly oppose him. Curry already accepted that Youghal was then ‘pretty generally split into two violent parties’ over whom the duke had little influence.Daniel O’Connell to John O’Brien, 12 Dec. 1834, O’Connell Correspondence, ed. M.R. O’Connell, v, 226-7; Barry & Hoppen, ‘Borough Politics’, 113; Belfast News-letter, 16 Dec. 1834; L.J. Proudfoot, ‘Landlords and politics: Youghal and Dungarvan in the 1830s’, Decies: Journal of the Waterford Archaeological & Historical Society, 34 (1987), 35-47 [44]. Nevertheless, O’Connell was careful not to represent himself as his father’s lieutenant in the repeal agitation, but stood simply as a ‘reformer’ and confined his canvass to ‘Anti-Toryism’.Though the candidate did remain publicly critical of the past record of the Whig administration: Parliamentary Test Book 1835, 112; O. MacDonagh, The Emancipist. Daniel O’Connell 1830-1847 (1989), 11; A. Macintyre, The Liberator. Daniel O’Connell and the Irish Party 1830-1847 (1965), 60; Daniel O’Connell to John O’Brien, 12 Dec. 1834, O’Connell Correspondence, v. 226-7. However, any thought he would be returned unopposed was belied by Devonshire’s refusal to ally himself with a family ‘whose politics he detested, and whose political ambitions had frequently been furthered at the expense of the duke’s interest and the security of his property’.Daniel O’Connell to Mary O’Connell, 2, 9, 17 Dec. 1834, John O’Connell to Daniel O’Connell, 8 Dec. 1834, Rev. John Sheehan to John O’Connell, 7 Jan. 1835, O’Connell Correspondence, v. 213-4, 224, 232, 220-1, 250; Proudfoot, Urban Patronage, 289. This encouraged Youghal’s Protestants, who formed nearly half of the electorate, to approach Devonshire with the terms under which they might support a Whig candidate against O’Connell.Proudfoot, Urban Patronage, 291.
After this offer was rebuffed, several Conservative candidates were solicited by the leaders of the corporation before Thomas Berry Cusack-Smith came forward. Smith, the second son of the Irish baron of exchequer, Sir William Cusack-Smith, was a distinguished barrister but had no previous political experience.Smith became MP Ripon 1843-6, solicitor and attorney-general for Ireland, 1842, 1842-6 and master of the Rolls [I], 1846: D. Hogan, ‘Smith, Thomas Berry Cusack’, Oxford DNB [www.oxforddnb.com] He opposed triennial parliaments, vote by ballot, further extension of the franchise, and the total abolition of tithes. Again, sectarian loyalties were mobilised when Smith, ‘a man of harsh manners and rough exterior’, was characterised as a ‘stalking-horse’ of the ‘Orange faction’ and his father was labelled as ‘the originator of the coercion act’.Barry & Hoppen, ‘Borough Politics’, 113; D’Alton, Protestant Society and Politics, 171; Freeman’s Journal, 2 Jan. 1835. During the election, Youghal was described by Feargus O’Connor as being in ‘a state of siege’, as the police and military sought to prevent another incursion into the town from the surrounding country. Again, Dominick Ronayne was arrested and subsequently imprisoned for inciting riot in the town.Barry & Hoppen, ‘Borough Politics’, 116-7; F. O’Connor, A series of letters from Feargus O’Connor Esq. Barrister at law; to Daniel O’Connell Esq. M.P. containing a review of Mr O’Connell’s conduct (1836), 6; The Times, 15 Aug. 1835. Due to the stringent inquiries made of each voter by the party attorneys, it took five days to poll the electors.O’Connell, Recollections, ii. 143-8. It was alleged that shortly before the close of the poll, as the freemen were voting, the corporation roll went missing. Because of their Protestantism, the freemen remained ‘an important reservoir of Tory strength’ and their consequent inability to poll meant that O’Connell won by a margin of seven votes.d’Alton, Protestant Society and Politics, 164; Hoppen, Elections, Politics, and Society, 5. For Feargus O’Connor’s election reminiscences, see Daily News, 29 Oct. 1849.
A petition was duly lodged, 9 Mar. 1835, and the subsequent 14 day inquiry, under the chairmanship of Lord John Russell, placed a great financial burden on O’Connell’s father. In addition to irregularities during the polling itself, the charges concerned arrears of municipal tax owed by some electors, and the registration of unqualified voters. The committee, however, refused to re-open the register and O’Connell was duly returned, 2 June 1835.CJ, 90 (1835), 65-6 (9 Mar. 1835), 265 (19 May 1835), 304 (2 June 1835); Barry & Hoppen, ‘Borough Politics’, 120; J.W. Knapp & E. Ombler, Cases of controverted elections in the twelfth parliament of the United Kingdom (1837), 444-50; Daniel O’Connell to P.V. Fitzgerald, 25 Mar., 14 Apr., 13, 27 May, 4 Sept. 1835, O’Connell Correspondence, v, 285, 289, 372, 306, 330. After the election there was an outburst of Protestant protest against ‘the excesses’ of O’Connell’s supporters, which had included a campaign of ‘exclusive dealing’ directed against Conservative voters.Macintyre, The Liberator, 124; The Times, 28 Jan. 1835; Barry & Hoppen, ‘Borough Politics’, 110. A Protestant Protection Society was promptly established and ‘henceforth Tories dealt only with Tory shopkeepers’. Regular meetings of the society ensured widespread participation in the Conservatives’ political revival. The Liberal committee’s circulation of black lists of those who voted for Smith also helped to unite Protestant landed interests, clergy, merchants and some erstwhile Whigs and forged ‘a sense of common identity within the Protestant community’.Hoppen, Elections, Politics, and Society, 310; The Times, 23 Feb. 1835; d’Alton, Protestant Society and Politics, 171-2.
When John O’Connell retired from Youghal to contest Athlone at the 1837 general election, his father was unable to secure Devonshire’s backing for another repealer and therefore agreed to back a ‘staunch Whig reformer’. Although Devonshire wished to further limit his involvement in Irish elections due to concerns over their cost and continuing violence, he endorsed Captain William George Cavendish, the son of his cousin, Charles Compton Cavendish on the condition that his father paid all the election expenses.Daniel O’Connell to Pierce Mahony, 6 Sept. 1836, O’Connell Correspondence, v, 395; Morning Chronicle, 27 June 1837; Barry & Hoppen, ‘Borough Politics’, 114; Proudfoot, Urban Patronage, 286. When, at the eleventh hour and at the government’s instigation, Frederick John Howard replaced Cavendish, the latter was dispatched to contest Bandon. Howard was the cousin of Lord Morpeth, the Irish chief secretary, and enjoyed the support of Devonshire, whose niece he had recently married. Yet, in spite of these advantages, a very close contest ensued.The Times, 10, 14, 17 July 1837; Morning Chronicle, 11 July 1837; Caledonian Mercury, 17 July, 14 Aug. 1837. The duke’s ‘immediate concern was Howard’s probable inability to meet the whole cost of the election, rather than his modest abilities as a candidate.’ The instructions received by his Irish agent were that the duke was ‘to pay nothing’ and sacrifice no property at Youghal. Howard visited the town three weeks before the election, having issued an address from London, in which he had stressed his connection with the House of Cavendish. As an English Protestant, he claimed to be ‘bound, by every obligation that can result from habit, from interest, and from kindred, to sustain the institutions of England as well as to reform them.’Proudfoot, Urban Patronage, 287, 291; Freeman’s Journal, 24 Aug. 1837; The Times, 15 July 1837; Morning Chronicle, 18 Aug. 1837.
Howard’s moderate message was not sufficient to discourage a Conservative challenge from William Nicol, a wealthy Liverpool merchant opposed to corporate reform who saw nothing ‘in the practical working of the English corporations’ to convince him that their extension to Ireland would be of ‘any real benefit to the country’. Nicol’s ‘unbending Protestantism’ also ensured that the contest would again be characterized by political and religious antagonism and, as in 1835, the Catholic clergy was ‘among the leading anti-Tory forces’.Morning Chronicle, 25 July 1837; Barry & Hoppen, ‘Borough Politics’, 114, 115; Proudfoot, Urban Patronage, 291. The Conservatives mounted a vigorous opposition to Howard, who subsequently claimed that their preparations had begun two years earlier when, ‘at vast expense, they had attended the registry at every sessions … [and] canvassed the greater number of their supporters’.Freeman’s Journal, 24 Aug. 1837. Confident predictions of a Liberal victory seemed misplaced when the duke’s law agent, Thomas Seward, nearly sabotaged Howard’s campaign. During the electoral registration he had had the ubiquitous agitator, Dominick Ronayne, arrested, ostensibly for non-payment of damages awarded to Seward two years previously.The Times, 14 July 1837. In 1835, Ronayne had £185 damages awarded against him for refusing to surrender to Seward some of the corporation’s documents (presumably the freeman’s roll) which he had falsely obtained: The Times, 15 Aug. 1835. This led to allegations that Seward was deliberately attempting to alienate moderate Catholic voters and although the Rev. Patrick Fogarty intervened to provide bail for Ronayne, the affair was believed to have hindered Howard’s return.Proudfoot, Urban Patronage, 102-3.
At the hustings, Howard’s defence of the right of the propertied interest to return its own representatives was loudly interrupted by Tory accusations that the House of Cavendish had no right to support from ‘the perishing artisans’. It was reported that voting was evenly split and that, due to the ‘Orange complexion’ of the town, a Liberal defeat might ensue. There were, however, a small but significant number of defections from the Tory camp, specifically among the wealthier element of the town. Howard defeated Nicol by only 8 votes, and this ‘despite the lavish and unauthorised expenditure of the duke’s money’.Barry & Hoppen, ‘Borough Politics’, 115, 119-20; Caledonian Mercury, 12 Aug. 1837; Proudfoot, Urban Patronage, 291. Two petitions against the result, one on grounds of fraudulent voting, and another, from Nicol himself, alleging bribery, were subsequently lodged, 21 Nov., 4 Dec. 1837.CJ, 93 (1837-8), 32-3 (21 Nov. 1837); 125-6 (4 Dec. 1837). Nicol offered no recognisances for his petition which was accordingly discharged, 19 Dec. 1837. Fourteen of Howard’s voters were arrested for perjury after falsely swearing that their qualifications had continued after they had vacated the houses for which they were registered. In turn, Howard’s counsel challenged the right of all freemen registered after 1832 to vote.Morning Chronicle, 4 Sep. 1837; Freeman’s Journal, 27 Feb. 1838. A predominantly Conservative committee was appointed on 22 February 1838 and this time did amend the register. However, even after 31 names had been struck off, Howard was still returned, 20 Mar. 1838.CJ, 93 (1837-8), 300 (22 Feb. 1838); 374 (20 Mar. 1838). See also Caledonian Mercury, 24 Feb. 1838; London Dispatch, 25 Feb. 1838; Freeman’s Journal, 6, 10, 12, 16, 19, 22 Mar. 1838; Morning Chronicle, 17, 20, 21 Mar. 1838; The Times, 28 Feb. 1838; 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 14, 19, 20 Mar. 1838. Although the petition failed, the battle cost Devonshire ‘over and above the excessive amount already spent by the agents without his authority’ and made his participation in future elections even more unlikely.Barry & Hoppen, ‘Borough Politics’, 120; Proudfoot, Urban Patronage, 287; T. Falconer & E.H. Fitzherbert, Cases of controverted elections determined in committees of the house of commons, in the second parliament of the reign of Queen Victoria (1839), 385-428.
When Howard retired to unsuccessfully contest Bridgnorth at the 1841 general election, The Times predicted that a Conservative would be ‘triumphantly returned’. An effort was made to induce Richard Smyth of Ballynantray, one time president of the town’s Brunswick Club and a candidate in 1830, to stand.The Times, 11, 14 June 1841; d’Alton, Protestant Society and Politics, 141. Despite having a clear majority on the register, Liberals were concerned that under the new Irish Municipal Corporations Act, the nomination of returning officers for the Cork boroughs would fall to the sub-sheriff, a well-known Conservative.Freeman’s Journal, 2, 12 June 1841. But after local efforts to find a repeal candidate foundered, the Hon. Charles Compton Cavendish, an Englishman and a cousin of Devonshire, was returned unopposed.Daniel O’Connell to Richard More O’Ferrall, 15 June 1841, O’Connell Correspondence, vii, 90.
During the famine, Youghal experienced serious food riots in September 1846 and witnessed further unrest in April 1847, as the number of people employed on public works was compulsorily reduced.C. Kinealy, This Great Calamity. The Irish Famine 1845-52 (1994), 144. It was reported that the neighbouring country was ‘lighted up by fires on the hills, and large detachments of people’ had ‘stationed themselves at various thoroughfares’ to prevent corn being brought into the town.: Freeman’s Journal, 24 Sept. 1846. Cavendish resigned the seat at the 1847 general election, claiming to have been begged by the electors of Buckinghamshire to represent his county of residence. The Freeman’s Journal, however, claimed that Cavendish had ‘felt one of those ground heavings that precede an earthquake … and made good his retreat with the grace and dignity of a lover who leaves an uncertain mistress, to fall back upon a certain conquest’. The Hon. Charles Ponsonby, a kinsman of the duke of Devonshire, abandoned his seat for Poole and came forward as a supporter of general programme of reform to improve ‘the social and moral condition of Ireland’.Freeman’s Journal, 7 July 1847; The Times, 1 July 1847, quoting Cork Examiner. Unconvinced by his assurances, the Liberal electors revolted, and in an effort to ‘fling off the unconstitutional influence’ of the duke, they called upon Thomas Chisholm Anstey, a well-known English Catholic barrister, who was ‘thoroughly identified with the cause of Repeal’ to offer instead.Freeman’s Journal, 12, 21, 28 July 1847; The Times, 24 July 1847. Although Anstey is frequently referred to as a Confederate candidate (Macintyre, Liberator, 295, Walker, ‘Politicians, Elections and Catastrophe’, 324), he did not join the Irish Confederation until after he was elected. See Freeman’s Journal, 30 Aug. 1847.
The Conservatives also declared that they would not support Ponsonby. A Protestant Operative Association had been established in the town in 1843 for the purposes of electoral organization, which had attracted both artisans and wealthier voters. It had proved a persistent critic of Devonshire’s accommodation of ‘papists’, and it was rumoured that the Conservatives bring forward Richard Samuel Guinness ‘in the hope that he might creep in through the dissensions between the Liberals and Repealers’. Guinness, however, decided to contest Kinsale and no other candidate was forthcoming.d’Alton, Protestant Society and Politics, 213; Hoppen, Elections, Politics, and Society, 311; J. Lees-Milne, The Batchelor Duke: A Life of William Spencer Cavendish, 6th Duke of Devonshire 1790-1858 (1991), 186; Morning Chronicle, 22 July 1847.
Although English Liberals criticised Anstey for his denunciations of the Union (his address was dismissed as ‘full of the most approved republican fustian’), he was able to unite Confederate and O’Connellite repealers, and it was reported that Ponsonby left Youghal without canvassing a quarter of his voters.Daily News, 30 July 1847. After an inauspicious start at the hustingsHe was proposed by George Gaggin, a Protestant landowner, who was unable to pronounce his name, and seconded by Samuel Green, who confessed that he would have preferred to nominate ‘Mr. Butt’: Morning Chronicle, 10 Aug. 1847., Anstey ‘dwelt in great detail on the failures of the union and delivered an extensive discourse on British constitutional law’. He briefly criticised the government’s failure to meet the famine crisis and proposed abolishing the currency laws and excises and reducing customs duties. He also favoured tenant-right, and the substitution of direct local taxation for ‘Parliamentary taxes’.Freeman’s Journal, 30 Aug. 1847. Ponsonby, on the other hand, assured his audience of the ‘wish of the government of England … to atone for years of mis-government and he described the free trade measures of the last parliament as the best means to bring prosperity and peace’.Walker, quoting Freeman’s Journal, 13 Aug. 1847 and Erne Packet, 16 Aug. 1847. The show of hands being in favour of Anstey, a poll was demanded. After two hours Ponsonby gave up the contest, ‘all efforts having failed to induce Conservatives to vote for the Duke of Devonshire’s nominee’.Only 170 of the 245 registered voters were polled, 44 Conservatives did not vote, 14 pledged themselves to Ponsonby but were not brought to the poll, and 2 voted for Anstey: Nation, 13 Aug. 1847 The result was hailed as a triumph for ‘the national party’. It was thought that only two Conservatives had voted for Ponsonby, the rest having ‘preserved their promised neutrality’ in an effort to put an end to the ‘undue influence of Lismore Castle’.Freeman’s Journal, 10, 11 Aug. 1847.
Although repealers believed that they had gained an ‘able auxiliary’ in Anstey, Liberal criticism of the Conservatives for favouring ‘a political visionary’ proved more accurate.Daily News, 13 Aug. 1847; Ipswich Journal, 14 Aug. 1847. Anstey was increasingly at odds with the Irish party ‘and the clerical propaganda’ to which he thought it ‘subservient’, and refused ‘to sit for Youghal as the mere nominee of the foreign and Ultramontane party’. Instead, he contested the borough of Bedford at the 1852 general election, his support for the repeal of the Maynooth grant having made him unacceptable amongst Irish Liberals.Bristol Mercury, 3 Apr. 1852; Preston Guardian, 10 Apr. 1852; Morning Chronicle, 15 Apr. 1852; Freeman’s Journal, 10 May 1852. The duke of Devonshire, meanwhile, ‘refused to allow any member of his family to stand’ for Youghal and lent his weight to Sir Ralph Howard, who issued an address in support of free trade and ‘equalising taxation in relation to the burdens upon land’. Although Howard’s reputation as a ‘thick-and-thin supporter of the Russell administration’ divided Liberal opinion, he made a favourable canvass before unexpectedly withdrawing from the contest, citing ‘private reasons’.Proudfoot, Urban Patronage, 292; Freeman’s Journal, 9 Apr., 5 June 1852; Morning Chronicle, 30 Mar., 7 Apr. 1852; Daily News, 3, 8 Apr. 1852. His withdrawal was subsequently attributed to his conversion ‘to the Protectionist policy of Lord Derby’s Government’: Belfast News-letter, 7 July 1852. The Hon John Fortescue, a son of 2nd earl Fortescue, came forward instead as a free-trader in favour of an equitable settlement of the tenant question, and as an opponent of Ecclesiastical Titles Act. He canvassed the town, but support for ‘the English Whig’ was uncertain.Daily News, 8, 10 June 1852; Newcastle Courant, 11 June 1852; Freeman’s Journal, 7 June 1852.
During the long campaigning season before the election, the Protestants of the town ‘maintained a highly visible electoral presence’. An energetic Conservative registration club had been formed in 1851 which ‘proved particularly successful in attracting support from Protestant artisans’.Hoppen, Elections, Politics, and Society, 37, 282, 290-1. Amid rumours that the Irish Chief Secretary, Lord Naas, might stand, Isaac Butt arrived in Youghal on 23 March. Having developed a concept of Irish nationalism to rival that of O’Connell (whom he had opposed when repeal was debated by the Dublin Corporation in 1843), Butt had been increasingly critical of Ireland’s fate under the Union.Morning Chronicle, 19 Mar. 1852; Freeman’s Journal, 24 Mar. 1852; P. Bew, Ireland. The politics of enmity 1789-2006 (2007), 158-9, 222. For Butt’s conception of Irish nationalism’, see J. Spence, ‘Isaac Butt and Irish Toryism’, Bullan: an Irish Studies Review, 2:1 (1995), 45-60. He stood as a ‘Liberal Conservative’, in favour of giving Ireland ‘a “fair share” of the public expenditure’, a total remission of the advances made during the famine, and ‘moderate protection’ for Irish commerce, manufactures and agriculture. While his candidacy was initially dismissed by the Liberal press, a successful canvass elicited ‘promises of support from the most influential quarters’, and it was believed that ‘the bitter Orange faction’ was working for his return.Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper, 4 Apr., 13 June 1852; Star and National Trades’ Journal, 3 Apr. 1852; Daily News, 5 Apr. 1852; Belfast News-letter, 9 Apr. 1852. Speculation about the seriousness of Butt’s candidacy continued until April 1852, when Sir FitzRoy Kelly, having been elected for Harwich, chose to sit for East Suffolk and Butt was returned for the vacant seat. Butt, however, returned to contest Youghal in July and in a ‘neck-and-neck race’ he beat Fortescue by two votes, even though not a single Roman Catholic was said to have voted for him.Morning Chronicle, 30 Apr. 1852; Daily News, 23 Apr. 1852; Freeman’s Journal, 3 May 1852; The Times, 16 July 1852; Hoppen, Elections, Politics, and Society, 37. Butt stood again as a Liberal Conservative in 1857, his politics now being described as those of ‘an old fashioned protectionist and a Palmerstonian imperialist’, on the understanding that his conduct in parliament ‘would be independent and influenced by [his] convictions’. Although it was rumoured that General James Chatterton and Richard Smyth might stand as Conservatives, neither candidacy materialised and Butt was returned unopposed.Nation, 22 July 1865; D. Thornley, Isaac Butt and Home Rule (1964), 14; Morning Chronicle, 17 Mar. 1857; Leeds Mercury, 19 Mar. 1857.
In 1859, Lord Eglinton, the Conservative viceroy, regarded Youghal as a possible gain for the party.K.T. Hoppen, ‘Tories, Catholics, and the General Election of 1859’, Historical Journal, 13:1 (1970), 48-67 [64]. A £300 subsidy was issued by Lord Naas from the party’s ‘national fighting fund’ to the Youghal Conservatives: Ibid., 66. Captain Hon. Swynfen Thomas Carnegie, a lord of the admiralty, offered himself as a candidate but then decided to contest Devonport, and Colonel John Rowland Smyth, a distinguished officer of the army in India, stood instead.Freeman’s Journal, 11 Apr. 1859; Glasgow Herald, 14 Apr. 1859; E.M. Lloyd, rev. James Lunt, ‘Smyth, Sir John Rowland’, Oxford DNB, vol. 51, 444. During the election, the town was said to be in ‘a most excited state’ and Smyth’s committee room windows were ‘broken by the mob’. Butt professed himself to be above party politics and, having voted against Derby’s reform bill, entered the town in triumph.Freeman’s Journal, 25 Apr. 1859; The Times, 29 Apr. 1859; Hoppen, Elections, Politics, and Society, 434. Having secured the support of the local Catholic clergy, he was disappointed to learn that Devonshire had decided that, owing to the impending sale of his estate at Youghal, it would be inappropriate for him to influence the election.Freeman’s Journal, 25 Apr. 1859; Proudfoot, Urban Patronage, 293. The estate was sold to David Leopold Lewis in November 1860 for £60,000. Butt also faced ‘an advanced Liberal’ challenge from Colonel Edmund Roche of Ballymonis, Co. Cork , a cousin of Lord Fermoy, and it was believed that if one of the two did not give way Smyth might win.Daily News, 9 Apr. 1859; Caledonian Mercury, 16 Apr. 1859; The Times, 2 May 1859. Although Smyth was a Derbyite, he was also ‘a local favourite’ and maintained a moderate line, it being reported that ‘from the tone of his address one would suppose that he was among the most ardent of Liberals’. Roche, however, despite being considered more ‘personally popular’ than Butt, ‘manfully waived his claims, and thus ensured the defeat of the Government candidate’.North Wales Chronicle, 23 Apr. 1859; Freeman’s Journal, 5, 10 May 1859; The Times, 10 May 1859; Nation, 7 May 1859.
By 1865, prosperous Conservatives were happy to ally themselves with the Devonshire interest and see ‘the Protestant operative section put down’ in the interests of improving the local economy. They responded enthusiastically to the candidacy of a wealthy Catholic banker, Joseph Neale McKenna, who stood as an ‘independent’ Liberal. His promise to ‘give situations to all the young men in the town’ led Samuel LeHunte Hobson, the Conservative candidate, to withdraw and lend him his support. McKenna then vied with Sir John Arnott, the Cork philanthropist and former Liberal MP for Kinsale, who had ‘bought his way’ into that town in 1859, and sought to win Liberal support on the issue of Youghal’s ‘tumble-down wooden toll-bridge’.Hoppen, ‘National Politics and Local Realities’, 209; ibid., Elections, Politics, and Society, 454, 451-2; Freeman’s Journal, 8 July 1865; Hoppen, ‘Roads to Democracy’, 563. McKenna, who owned a marine residence nearby, undertook to purchase the lessee’s interest in the bridge, thus making it toll-free, and to maintain it until replaced by a better structure.Youghal Bridge was 1,875 feet across and constructed in 1829-32 at a cost of £17,500. It was replaced by an iron bridge in 1880: Wain, History of Youghal, 39. He explained that as the proprietor of estates on both banks of the Blackwater, he merely wished to render free communication between counties Cork and Waterford, and denied that the offer was connected to his candidacy. Nevertheless, not ‘to be outdone in public spirit’, Arnott proposed at his own expense to have the bar at the entrance of the harbour cleared for large vessels.The Times, 1 June 1865; Pall Mall Gazette, 5 June 1865; Nation, 10 June 1865.
On the eve of the election, with Arnott having abandoned his candidacy in the face of McKenna’s advantage as a large local proprietor with ‘powerful friends’, a walkover was anticipated.Freeman’s Journal, 16 June 1865; The Times, 19 June 1865. And yet Butt, who had been in Ulster defending Fenian prisoners when McKenna was selected as a candidate, returned to Youghal to fight what he regarded as an unfair attempt to ‘discard him from the borough’. Butt, who had found no satisfactory outlet in either the two parliamentary parties, issued an address the day before the nominations defending the ‘trying occasions’ on which he had voted with the ministry and reasserted his independence, endorsing both tenant-right and free education. He dismissed McKenna’s claims on the borough as ‘a Catholic Liberal’, and the support given him by the local Catholic clergy, by imploring the electors not to reject ‘a Protestant, because he was a Protestant’. Though the show of hands was in favour of McKenna, Butt demanded a poll. When polling began the town was ‘exceedingly quiet … no sign of a contested election was visible’, and after just two hours Butt resigned, having polled only 28 votes. The borough was thus regarded as a loss to the ‘Independent Opposition Party’ and a gain for the ‘Ministerialists’.The Times, 10 July 1865; Belfast News-letter, 18 July 1865; Leeds Mercury, 19 July 1865; Nation, 8, 22, 29 July 1865.
Although McKenna subsequently persuaded the government to pass a special act freeing Youghal Bridge from its traditional tolls, he was defeated at the 1868 general election by ‘an even more open-pursed’ Gladstonian Liberal opponent. The election expenses of the ‘heroically corrupt’ London merchant and director of the Bank of England, Christopher Weguelin, amounted to £5,000 (i.e. £18 per voter).Hoppen, Elections, Politics, and Society, 454, 61, 84-5; Birmingham Daily Post, 31 July 1868. After Weguelin was unseated on petition neither candidate recontested the seat, which was narrowly won by Montague John Guest for the Liberals. McKenna, standing as a Home Rule Liberal, held the seat from 1874 until 1885 in the face of strong Conservative challenges from Sir Robert Uniacke Penrose-Fitzgerald and David Taylor Arnott, the son of his challenger in 1865. In 1885, the borough was incorporated into the constituency of Cork East and promptly became a stronghold of the Nationalist party.
