THE month just ended was a quiet one for politics, in line with a long-standing tradition: in the whole of the 19th and 20th centuries only three general elections were held during August - in 1837, 1847 and 1923, writes Brian Walker.
All these events were significant, but in the case of the 1847 general election its main significance lay in what failed to happen rather than what did happen.
It is not widely appreciated that a general election occurred in the middle of the Great Famine. At this stage Ireland returned 105 MPs to Westminster. During these critical weeks in August 1847, however, there was a serious failure among Irish politicians and electors to respond to their situation in a meaningful way.
The Famine had begun in the second half of 1845. Failure of the potato crop that year and the next led to massive loss of life and forced emigration. By the summer of 1847, however, it seemed to many people that the worst was over. In July and August the press carried reports of good harvests. Unfortunately, the crops planted were small in quantity and great suffering was to ensue in late 1847 and into 1848. Blight would return again in 1848 and 1849, with dire results.
When we look at the election addresses and nomination speeches of the candidates, it is surprising to see that during the August 1847 general election the Famine was not the dominant subject of discussion. There was not a great sense that the country was facing a crisis. For most politicians, of all parties, their main concerns continued to revolve around the "normal" subjects of "repeal", the "constitution" or "civil and religious liberty". In spite of talk earlier in the year of Irish politicians joining together to tackle the Famine, this did not happen and they failed to come up with new alliances or ideas to challenge the government.
Reasons for this failure included wishful thinking that the worst was over, an unwillingness to face reality and an inability to propose sensible measures to tackle immediate problems. Many candidates spoke of good harvests and talked about the "past famine", though others did refer to the ongoing crisis. It is amazing that only a few individuals warned about the small quantities of potato crops planted. Their words of concern were simply disregarded by the vast majority of politicians and electors and it was not until late August/September that most people woke up to this problem.
In some constituencies candidates did discuss the Famine and made suggestions to improve matters, usually with long-term ideas, such as land reform. Curiously, the new poor law arrangements, which were introduced earlier in the summer and which later would prove disastrous, attracted relatively little critical attention. A number of candidates deplored conditions aboard emigrant ships, but none appear to have advocated specific reforms of navigation laws.
In other constituencies, the Famine was mentioned barely or not at all. In Belfast, it received very brief reference from the candidates, which in some ways is not surprising, given the lower mortality rate in the north-east than elsewhere. Much more surprising was the absence of response in urban Cork and Galway. In Cork, the three Repeal candidates were largely concerned with personal rivalries. In Galway, neither of the two unopposed Repeal candidates mentioned the Famine in their addresses and nomination speeches.
Another astonishing example of failure to deal effectively with the crisis concerned the so-called Gregory Clause which had been introduced into new relief measures earlier in the summer by William Gregory, a Co Galway landowner and Dublin City Conservative MP. To prevent better-off farmers abusing the relief system, he brought in a quarter-acre qualification. This later had very damaging consequences, by leading many people with holdings above a quarter-acre to give up their homes to obtain assistance. Subsequently, Gregory was the object of much opprobrium over this clause and its unintended outcome.
During the general election, however, there was virtually no protest over the Gregory Clause. In Dublin, Gregory was challenged briefly by a Repeal candidate, John Reynolds, primarily on the grounds that it "must have the effect of swamping Dublin and the other large towns in Ireland by the paupers from their rural district" and create extra expense for ratepayers, rather than from any concern about its effects on smallholders. Gregory lost his seat, not thanks to this measure, but because of Orange opposition to him and because he had backed corn law repeal.
A second rare example of concern for the Gregory Clause occurred in Co Clare. Charles O'Connell was a maverick who, after falling out with both Repealers and Confederates, announced his own intention to stand for election. In early August he issued a very uncommon warning that this clause would "drive our poor unprotected fellow creatures to despair" by compelling them to give up their homes before they could obtain relief. He then withdrew from the contest and supported the successful Conservative landlord candidate. Ironically, in light of his prophetic observation about people losing their homes, the Limerick Chronicleof August 18th reported that O'Connell's house at Liscannor was "maliciously demolished" due to his support for the Conservative.
Gregory failed to appreciate the damage his clause would create or to understand the full reality of the grave difficulties which confronted Ireland. At the same time, it seems fair to say that this failure was not his alone, but one that was shared by many of his contemporaries. In the summer of 1847, after a brief respite, Ireland sleepwalked into the famine abyss, again.
• Brian Walker has recently published a detailed study of the 1847 general election in vol 22, no 1 ofIrish Political Studies