Nenagh Canal

Canal between Nenagh and the River Shannon

At a numerous and highly respectable Meeting of the Gentry, Merchants, Traders, and Freeholders of the Baronies of Upper Ormond, Lower Ormond, and Owney and Arra, held at Nenagh, County of Tipperary, on Wednesday, the 30th day of January, 1839.

PETER HOLMES, Esq, JP, and DL, in the Chair.

Moved by John Bayly, Esq; seconded by the Rev J H Poe, Rector of Nenagh:

Resolved — That we consider a Canal communication between Nenagh and the River Shannon, of vital importance to the prosperity of the town and neighbourhood, as increasing commerce, lessening the cost of fuel, facilitating intercourse with the sea ports of the country, and giving employment to the poor.

Moved by John Bouchier, Esq; seconded by the Reverend Ambrose O’Connor, PP of Nenagh:

Resolved — That we have heard with interest the Report of Mr Henry Buck, Engineer, on the proposed line of Canal; and recommend the adoption of the line he has surveyed.

Moved by John M’Keogh Dwyer, Esq; seconded by Thomas Maguire, Esq:

Resolved — That we recommend the adoption of the Prospectus that we have heard read.

Moved by Hastings Atkins, Esq; seconded by J J Poe, Esq:

Resolved — That we appoint Peter Holmes, Esq, a Commissioner, who is to name a second, the second a third, and so on, until the whole are appointed.

Moved by O’Brien Dillon, Esq; seconded by John Bayley, Esq:

Resolved — That the names of Lords Dunally, and Orkney be added to the list of Commissioners.

Moved by Doctor Quin; seconded by Doctor Dempster:

Resolved — That we recommend the proceedings of the Meeting to be published in the Nenagh Guardian, Limerick Chronicle, and other Papers, and that the Secretary be instructed to get printed 300 copies of the Prospectus.

Moved by John M’Keogh Dwyer, Esq; seconded by Thos Maguire, Esq:

Resolved — That we now enter into a Subscription list for Shares, according to the provisions of the Prospectus read at this Meeting.

PETER HOLMES, Chairman.
O’BRIEN DILLON, Secretary.

Mr Holmes having left the Chair, and Mr Bayley having been called thereto —

Resolved — That the thanks of the Meeting are due, and hereby given, to Peter Holmes, Esq, for his impartial conduct in the Chair, and for the spirited example he has set in being the first to subscribe for Fifty Shares.

JOHN BAYLEY, Chairman.
O’BRIEN DILLON, Secretary.

Dublin Monitor 7 February 1839

4 responses to “Nenagh Canal

  1. 1839 is very late, well into the Railway Age!

  2. True, although progress on Irish railways was largely suspended at the time because of the proposal that the state fund Irish railways. There was an even later set of canal proposals, some of which went ahead at public expense, and all the fault of W T Mulvany: they included the Cong Canal, the Junction Canal in the Ballinamore and Ballyconnell Drainage District and the Lower Bann Navigation. The proposed navigation to Lough Oughter was abandoned, although local politicians are still trying to revive it. bjg

  3. @Richard Norton – Yes and no. By 1839, only the Dublin and Kingstown Railway and the Ulster Railway had made it into existence with operating railways. There were plenty of other plans, which were semi-moribound due to the financial crisis of 1837 and the the Drummond Commission (http://www.industrialheritageireland.info/TikiWiki/tiki-index.php?page=Drummond+Commission) report, which proposed State investment in railways in Ireland, which never happened.

    It took the capitalists a few years to get going again with 1845 being the peak year for Acts of Parliament for railways in both Britain and Ireland.

  4. Has anyone written any extensive study of the politics behind Viscount Morpeth’s abandonment of his railway bill? It was approved by the Commons but then withdrawn. I have seen suggestions, in newspapers of the time, that (a) Pim (of D&KR) wanted public railways so he could get a job with them and (b) the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Thomas Spring Rice, although he spoke in favour of Morpeth’s bill, refused to allow the issuing of Exchequer Bills to fund the railway scheme, although he was happy to do so for his Shannon scheme. Spring Rice was much criticised at the time for borrowing too much (issuing too many Exchequer Bills). bjg

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s