We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 March 2016
On 7 August 1837, the first day of voting in an election for two county seats, there was an altercation on the steps of the courthouse in Carlow town. This was not a typical Irish election riot, however, although large numbers of excited supporters of the rival candidates were milling around in the streets adjacent to the building. The altercation, which involved shouted abuse and a physical struggle, took place between two men only: one was the town’s sub-inspector of constabulary, and the other was its resident magistrate (R.M.) — in other words, Carlow’s two principal government-appointed upholders of law and order. The resulting scandal was to have significant implications. It led to a great deal of heated correspondence with Dublin Castle, more than one constabulary inquiry, several court cases, and many questions before a subsequent select committee, to say nothing of numerous petitions, newspaper articles and pamphlets; but, most important, it ultimately precipitated the resignation of Colonel James Shaw Kennedy, the first inspector-general of the Irish Constabulary. This article will attempt to explain why an apparently minor scuffle in Carlow town created a crisis in Irish policing in the late 1830s.
1 Tuathaigh, M. A. G. Ó, Thomas Drummond and the government of Ireland, 1835–41, O’Donnell Lecture (Galway, 1977), pp 18–19Google Scholar.
2 P. R. O., Irish Constabulary personnel register, HO 184/45, pp 75–98. Of the rank and file in 1833–4, around one-third were Catholics, but Catholic numbers rose rapidly thereafter: see Palmer, S.H., Police and protest in England and Ireland, 1780–1850 (Cambridge, 1988), pp 346-7Google Scholar, 364.
3 Minutes of evidence taken before the select committee of the House of Lords, appointed to enquire into... crime and outrage, iii, 1072–3, H.L. 1839 (486-III), xii, 208–9 (henceforth Report on crime, iii); Crossman, Virginia, Politics, law and order in nineteenth-century Ireland (Dublin, 1996), pp 74–8Google Scholar.
4 Despite the concerns of the committee, both Slattery and Walshe had successful constabulary careers, the former retiring in 1859 and the latter dying at his post in 1853 (P.R.O., Irish Constabulary personnel register, HO 184/45, pp 98, 105).
5 Report on crime, iii, 1071/207, 1000/134.
6 Ó Tuathaigh, Drummond, pp 13–14; McDowell, R. B., The Irish administration, 1801–1914 (London, 1964), pp 114-15Google Scholar; Bonsall, Penny, The Irish R.M.s: the resident magistrates in the British administration of Ireland (Dublin, 1997), pp 11–24Google Scholar.
7 Ó Tuathaigh, Drummond, pp 8–9.
8 For Shaw Kennedy’s career see his Notes on the battle of Waterloo, with a brief memoir of his life and services (London, 1865)Google Scholar and Fulham, G. J., ‘James Shaw-Kennedy and the reformation of the Irish Constabulary, 1836–8’ in Eire-Ireland, xvi, no. 2 (summer 1981), pp 93–106Google Scholar.
9 Shaw Kennedy, Notes on the battle of Waterloo, p. 38. Shaw Kennedy’s appointment was welcomed by Irish Tories, who feared that the post would go to Sir Frederick Stovin, the inspector-general of Ulster and a noted critic of the Orange Order: see Palmer, Police & protest, pp 346, 359.
10 [Kennedy, James Shaw], Standing rules and regulations for the government and guidance of the constabulary force in Ireland (Dublin, 1837)Google Scholar.
11 Report from the select committee of the House of Lords, appointed to enquire into the state of Ireland in respect of crime, i, 6, H.L. 1839 (486-1), xi, 10 (henceforth Report on crime, i).
12 Ibid., p.7/11.
13 Ibid., pp 15/19, 6/10.
14 Ibid., p. 6/10.
15 The county seats were ultimately won by the two Liberal candidates with a majority of 87 out of a poll of 1, 373 votes (Walker, B. M. (ed.), Parliamentary election results in Ireland, 1801–1922 (Dublin, 1978), p. 62Google Scholar).
16 The county force grew by 137 per cent between 1824 and 1842, compared with an increase nationally over the same period of only 80 per cent. Perhaps it is no coincidence that, when the Halls came to describe the Irish Constabulary in the early 1840s, they inserted their account into their chapter on County Carlow. See Palmer, Police & protest, p. 555; Mr and MrsHall, S. C., Ireland: its scenery, character, &c. (new ed., 3 vols, London, n.d.), i, 417-26Google Scholar.
17 The following account of the clash between Vignoles and Gleeson is based upon their own reports sent to Thomas Drummond (both dated 7 Aug. 1837) and upon evidence presented to the inquiry headed by Joseph Greene, R.M., and Provincial Inspector J. Holmes, which reported on 21 Aug. 1837 (N.A.I., Chief Secretary’s Office, Registered Papers (henceforth C.S.O., R.P.) 1837/655).
18 Bagenal, Steuart and also Thomas Watson were listed with three other magistrates in a handbill circulated in Carlow in May 1838 celebrating the withdrawal of the commissions of ‘Orange’ magistrates. At the time Liberal newspapers suggested that these magistrates had been sacked for trying to remove Catholics from the county’s jury list in anticipation of trials arising from the Vignoles-Gleeson clash. See Carlow handbill, May 1838 (N.A.I., C.S.O., R.P. 1838/3/64); Ó Tuathaigh, Drummond, p. 12; Kavanagh, P. J., ‘The political scene: Carlow county and borough, 1831–41’ (unpublished M.A. thesis, University College Dublin, 1974), p. 63Google Scholar.
19 Walker (ed.), Parliamentary election results, pp 255–6. For a detailed account of the Carlow elections of the 1830s see Kavanagh, ‘Political scene’, pp 1–30.
20 Hoppen, K.T., Elections, politics and society in Ireland, 1832–85 (Oxford, 1984), pp 77, 84Google Scholar.
21 Report from the select committee on Carlow election petitions, H.C. 1836 (89), xi. For the arrangement between O’Connell and the candidate and their subsequent dispute see MacDonagh, Oliver, The emancipist: Daniel O’Connell, 1830–47 (London, 1989), pp 139-42Google Scholar.
22 MacDonagh, The emancipist, p. 196.
23 In July 1835 Walshe’s body had been found near Slye’s farm; he had died as a result of head injuries. Slye was an active supporter of Thomas Kavanagh, a leading Tory landowner and convert from Catholicism. Political tension was running high at the time, as the petition of Kavanagh and Colonel Bruen against their defeat by the Liberal candidates in the June election was being heard and Walshe was due to testify in favour of the Liberals. Slye and his supporters maintained that Walshe had fallen from his horse while drunk, but the inquest returned a murder verdict and Slye was prosecuted. His principal accuser was a Catholic sub-constable, Hugh Corrigan, who challenged Slye’s alibi. But Corrigan admitted that he had only come forward after consulting a priest. Slye, however, was acquitted in March 1836 by a wholly Tory jury amid charges of jury-packing. Corrigan’s evidence had been refuted by his Protestant sergeant, Francis Patterson, and Corrigan was subsequently transported for perjury. Yet Patterson was also soon dismissed from the constabulary, having been found to have been absent without leave; it later emerged that during his absence he had spent at least one night with Slye. Before the 1839 select committee on crime Vignoles raised this case and asserted that the prosecution of Slye had been politically motivated. This was strenuously denied by the Liberals. Nevertheless, the Slye case heightened sectarian bitterness in Carlow and it demonstrates that the constabulary was far from immune to such conflicts. See Report on crime, i, 349–53/353-7; ibid., iii, 867–9/3-5, 1290–94/430-34, 1304–5/444-5, 1321–35/461-75, 1379–84/519-24; Kavanagh, ‘Political scene’, pp 45–52.
24 Bishop Nolan was presumably referring to the election of Nicholas Vigors and Alexander Raphael, who had won the county seats at a by-election in June 1835 after Kavanagh and Bruen, the Tory victors in the general election of Janaury 1835, had been unseated on petition. Yet Vigors was a Protestant and Raphael an English Jew who had converted to Catholicism. Apparently, in Carlow in the 1830s, ‘Catholic’ and ‘Protestant’ were political as much as religious labels. See Walker (ed.), Parliamentary election results, pp 56, 61.
25 Alexis de Tocqueville’s journey in Ireland, July-August 1835, ed. and trans. Emmet Larkin (Dublin, 1990), pp 39–47Google Scholar.
26 This is a reference to an earlier incident at a by-election for one of the county seats in February 1837 when Vignoles became involved in a fight with supporters of the Liberal candidate during voter registration in the courthouse. See ‘Memorial of the undersigned electors and inhabitants of the county of Carlow to the lord lieutenant’, [Aug. 1837] (N.A.I., C.S.O., R.P. 1837/655).
27 ‘Report of Mr Greene and Major Holmes’, 21 Aug. 1837 (ibid.);‘Minute of the lord lieutenant with respect to Captain Gleeson and Captain Vignoles’, 1 Sept. 1837 (ibid.).
28 Among a great deal of correspondence, see Vignoles to Lord Morpeth, chief secretary, 7, 23, 28 Sept., 18 Oct. 1837 (ibid.). For press reports of the trials see Dublin Evening Mail, 23 Apr. 1838; Dublin Evening Post, 24 Apr. 1838; Freeman’s Journal, 24 Apr. 1838; see also Coffey, James, Report of the trial of Captains Vignoles and Watson .. . with a brief review of the political condition of Carlow (Dublin, 1838)Google Scholar.
29 Fitzgibbon, a Protestant from Limerick, joined the constabulary in November 1835 at the age of twenty-five. He worked closely with Vignoles and obviously had the confidence of the Carlow magistrates, who rewarded him with a testimonial in 1839. He died suddenly in 1844 (P.R.O., Irish Constabulary personnel register, HO 184/45, p. 70).
30 Healy’s record does not appear in the Irish Constabulary’s personnel register, which suggests that he must have left the force before the register was consolidated sometime in the 1840s. But testimonials he presented at the November 1837 inquiry show that he joined the constabulary in 1823, serving for ten years in Meath and Wicklow before being transferred to Carlow (N.A.I., C.S.O., R.P. 1838/197).
31 For the pro-Tory campaigns of the Carlow Sentinel see Kavanagh, ‘Political scene’, pp 85–8. For the charges against Healy, the evidence presented at the inquiry and legal opinion, see N.A.I., C.S.O., R.P. 1838/197. The Healy case is also examined at length in Report on crime, iii, 1344–55/484-95.
32 Of the six constables who saw Healy in the barracks that evening, three said that he was sober, one that he was drunk, one that he had been drinking but was ‘fit for duty’, while one said that he couldn’t tell. For men who lived and worked with Healy and who regularly arrested drunks, this was, to say the least, a striking difference of opinion. The constables also could not agree on when he returned from the pub, giving times ranging from 11 p.m. to after 1 a.m. The inquiry, frustrated by conflicting evidence, clearly suspected some of the constables of lying.
33 Saville was a Wicklow Protestant, who joined the constabulary in 1823 aged twenty-four. He served in Wicklow until 1835, when he was transferred to Carlow. He was promoted to head constable in September 1837 and to sub-inspector in 1847. He retired in 1869 (P.R.O., Irish Constabulary personnel register, HO 184/45, p. 139).
34 The formal report of the incident submitted by Chief Constable Fitzgibbon on 5 August 1837 gave a rather different account. It said that a ‘mob’ had been breaking the windows of houses in Tullow Street, but had dispersed as soon as the police under Healy arrived. When two armed men, Stewart and Jenkinson, emerged demanding that their houses be protected, Healy arrested them for ‘appearing in arms’. Not surprisingly perhaps, they and their Tory friends deeply resented his action (N.A.I., C.S.O., R.P. 1837/3/106).
35 Report on crime, iii, 1352/492.
36 Ibid., p. 1350/490.
37 Ibid., p. 1356/496.
38 This statement certainly reflected government policy, which was to avoid using the army and police in situations where there was likely to be a clash over tithe collection. See Macintyre, Angus, The Liberator: Daniel O’Connell and the Irish party, 1830–47 (New York, 1965), p. 189Google Scholar; Crossman, Virginia, ‘The army and law and order in the nineteenth century’ in Bartlett, Thomas and Jeffery, Keith (eds), A military history of Ireland (Cambridge, 1996), pp 372-3Google Scholar.
39 Report on crime, i, 306–11/310-15.
40 Ibid., pp 312–17/316-21; O’Brien, R. B., Thomas Drummond, undersecretary in Ireland, 1835–40: life and letters (London, 1889), pp 265-6Google Scholar, 346.
41 See the evidence of Chief Constable Fitzgibbon and M. H. Murphy, Aug. 1837 (N.A.I., C.S.O., R.P. 1837/655).
42 This referred to a rather obscure earlier incident raised at the inquiry by the editor of the Carlow Sentinel. Healy was accused of becoming involved in a fight with a sub-constable in a public house during which pistols were drawn. In his evidence presented in November 1837 Gleeson explained that he had personally investigated the accusation and found it ‘perfectly groundless’ with ‘but the hearsay of a woman to prop it up’. No official report was submitted, and Gleeson claimed not to remember the details of the matter (N.A.I., C.S.O., R.P. 1838/197).
43 Report on crime, iii, 1357–74/497-514.
44 Ibid., i, 22/26.
45 Warburton served as interim inspector-general for several months after Shaw Kennedy’s resignation. He was a yeomanry officer, appointed a police magistrate in 1816. On the creation of the county constabulary in 1822, he became inspector-general of Connacht, and in 1836 he was appointed Shaw Kennedy’s deputy. For his reluctance to surrender the inspector-generalship in 1838 see Curtis, Robert, The history of the Royal Irish Constabulary (Dublin, 1869), pp 47-9Google Scholar.
46 Report on crime, i, 54/58, 82/86.
47 Ibid., iii, 1371/511.
48 Like Shaw Kennedy, McGregor was a Scottish-born light infantry officer and Peninsular veteran, but, unlike Shaw Kennedy, he served as inspector-general for twenty years: see ‘Decorations: Sir Duncan MacGregor [sic], inspector general 1838–58’ in Proceedings of the Royal Ulster Constabulary Historical Society, winter 1995, pp 1–2.
49 As well as being reported in newspapers and investigated before a select committee during the 1830s, the affair was still being referred to many years afterwards. See Curtis, Royal Irish Constabulary, p. 46; [Croker, John], The Croker inquiry. Miscarriages of justice. Brief pamphlet (Dublin, 1877), p. 12Google Scholar.
50 Report on crime, i, 120/124; O’Brien, Drummond, pp 270–71; Croker inquiry, p. 12.
51 Palmer, Police & protest, pp 342, 355–6.
52 Fulham, ‘Shaw-Kennedy’, p. 99.
53 Ó Tuathaigh, Drummond, p. 18.
54 Crossman, Politics, law & order, pp 77–8.
55 Palmer, Police & protest, pp 366–7; Malcolm, Elizabeth, ‘The rise of the pub: a study in the disciplining of popular culture’ in Donnelly, J.S. jr, and Miller, K. A. (eds), Irish popular culture, 1650–1850 (Dublin, 1998), pp 68–70Google Scholar.
56 I would like to thank the Economic and Social Research Council, which provided funding for much of the research upon which this article is based. I would also like to acknowledge the contribution of Mark Radford, who has worked for me as a research assistant.
