JOURNAL OF THE IRISH LABOUR HISTORY SOCIETY

THE DECLINE AND FALL OF DONNYBROOK FAIR 11Dublin friends to continue to pay their annual visit 'as we have ample space on our licensed premisesto entertain and comfortably accommodate the public generally' .31 This J.L.D. was one Joseph DiIIon,none other than the nephew of John Madden who had died in 1850 and whose heirs had sold off the rightsto the abolition committee. A public house owner of the village, Dillun had been the effective organiserof the fair since the death of his uncle in 1850, and naturally was not going to take his own econorriicextinctiun quietIy.32 With his daughter Eliza he took up the task uf reviving Donnybrook Fair; Althoughthe Madden family interest had been bought out, there was nothing to prevent the nephew Dillon fromusing his licensed premises; which included a two and a half acre field facing on to the old faiqsTound,from organising the animal market and th~public.amusements.()(old. To the consternation of clergyand police, this he proceeded to do.. . _. .. .On25 August, 1855 he buldly published in the newspapers a notice of his intentionto.contiriue thefair by accommodating iton his property. When published, this notice appeared beside that of the policein which they hadannuunced their intention to crack down on hackney cab drivers in-the area 'incunsequence of the abolition of Donnybrook Fair' .33 In sume dismay, early in the next year, J.D.Fitzgerald, a legal advisor to the Irish Office in London, confirmed to CuI. Thomas Larcom,Undersecretary at Dublin Castle, that from the legal aspect the abolition committee's wurkhad beenall in vain, and that some special legislation would be needed. 34In the years immediately following the apparent abolition of 1855 Dillon and his daughter Elizacuntinued tu hold the fair in defiance of church and state. For the fair of August 1858-they had a largeposter printed, entitledAmusementfor the Millions, and when the Police Cummissioners sgughtadviceas to its legality they were formally advised that only sume special measure could stop the Dillons. Toadd insult to injury, in anticipation of the fair uf 1859, Eliza Dillon actually wrote to the Commissiunersof police in July: 'I am about holding 'the annual fair at Donnybrook'. And in order to preserve peaceand regularity I humbly require the aid and protection of the Metropolitan Police. '35 -Tu his chagrin the Divisional Superintendent for the area, James McMahun, had to admit that sincethe Custom House records showed her license to be for 'House and Premises', thdaw was not beingviolated by holding festivities and selling drink in the Dillon field. He had to add that as a cunsequenceuf this loophole every day of the fair some 20,000 people visited the village andavailed of theentertainments laid unby the Dillons in 1859; that this, in turn, required the presence. of one hundredofficers and men of the DMP and that' scenes of the most demomlising nature have occurred withinthis enclosure. '36In response to the dilemma nuw posed, the legal officers of the Crown suggested· that the ChiefSecretary should fully support the Dublin police magistrates in refusing to renew theDillons'licence. 37This turned out to be the key weapon in the fight against the Dillons' efforts to preserve the fair. On8 November, 1859 Eliza Dillon' s application for a renewal of the licence came before·the magistratesof College Street Police Office. Superintendent McMahon was happy to report to the PoliceCommissioners that her application had been refused. 38 But, if this louked like the end of the road, itwas not.In the summer of 1860 Joseph Dillon published a placard announcing that Donnybrook Fair wouldbe held this year 'as usual'. He intended to apply for a spirit grocer's licence to replace that refused tohis daughter in November, 1859. Determined to thwart him the Police Commissioners requested theCastle to ask the Commissioners ofInland Revenue in turn tu authurise their Dublin officials to refusethe issue of this licence. 39 With some misgivings Inland Revenue replied on 14 August; 1860. Theyinsisted that they had no legal authority to withhold the licence, but. given thatthe Dublin policer~uesthad the endorsement of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,they instructed their Dublin.revenue officials'not to grant licences without further orders'. Nervously the London revenue authorities insisted thatsince they had no power to refuse Dillon 'they must therefore rely upon His Excellency's authority incase theirconduct in refusing the licence should be called in question' .40 The eventual result of theseand further exchanges between Dublin police and Inland Revenue was that no spiritousliquorsor beer(other than ginger beer) were sold'in Dillon's field during the days of the fair, and the police were able