Halpins of Co. Wicklow, Portarlington and Dublin City - Part 2

[Shanachai]

     1D.

any temptations different from the ordinary protection, which in Ireland is absolutely necessary to secure the life and (if he have any) the property of a convert, is to utter at once a falsehood and an absurdity.  Were these noble persons weak enough to purchase a hollow conformity, are they also simple enough to imagine their fortune sufficient enough to bribe the whole population en masse, and to retain it in its new profession?  And yet without this, they would have beggared themselves in vain.  Let any Roman Catholic, who, without examination, has believed the tale, ask himself whether he could be bribed to renounce his religion; and if he feels he could not, let him consider how many millions of his countrymen there are, who, if they believe in the truth of their profession, would equally spurn at the insulting proposal.  No wealth, therefore, could possibly purchase the whole, or even a greater part of the population.  And yet the friends and the promoters of the Reformation expect to convert the whole.  Either then bribery forms no part of the system of conversion they pursue, or they are at once the silliest and the wickedest of all enthusiasts.  Yet several of the most prominent among them are known to be neither weak nor wicked.  Many have distinguished themselves by the display of no ordinary talents - some have risen to great eminence by the prudent and laborious exercise of a masterly and well-regulated genius; and not one of them is known to be deficient in goodness of heart or honesty of character.  Were it not then a strange thing that men who had shown themselves wise and benevolent in all other concerns of life, should in this betray the utmost imbecility of mind and depravity of disposition?  The thing is incredible.  No man, who circulates the fable, believes it; and those who, through interested motives, have put it forward, are perhaps the most thoroughly convinced of its utter worthlessness.  Were anything but the bare exposure of it necessary to confute the fabrication, and could individual testimony add conviction to the internal evidence of falsehood, the Editor of these pages, as being intimate with all the proceedings at Cavan, and a close and constant observer of almost every occurrence there since the commencement of the business, would feel himself called on to record his solemn conviction of the whole untruth of the charge; and he is conscienciously enabled to declare that, to his own knowledge, so far from bribery or worldly inducements being held out to procure conformity, the persons who expressed a desire to recant, were constantly warned to consider well the purity of their motives - of the danger they incurred by a false profession: - that if they had formed notions of worldly advantage in the change they were about to make, they were grossly deceived; and further, that they would encounter, and must be prepared to endure, privations and calumny, contempt and persecutions.
     Neither is the Reformation to be attributed to the political agitations of the country.  It is true, that together with the protection afforded by Protestants, the tyranny and monstrous usurpations of the Romish Clergy, have been among the most proximate causes of the spirit evinced at this time and in this country.  The Priests have indeed driven the people to an earlier, and perhaps a more simultaneous assertion of the rights of conscience, that might otherwise have taken place; and have thus hurried forward the present extraordinary manifestation.  But the true and efficient cause of the Reformation have been long since laid; and though a little more remote, are not the less obvious.  As these will be found explained with great clearness and brevity in Lord Farnham's speech, I shall not here anticipate them; but merely add that the discussions which so frequently occurred on the subject of the Bible, excited a profound curiosity amongst the people to know the contents of this much-disputed book; and opened the understandings of many to the truth as it is in the Gospel.  The spiritual despotism also of the Priests at the late election, and the temporal misery it had brought upon their deluded followers, rendered a liberation from their power, if possible, a desirable object; and the total failure of those miraculous powers which they assumed to control the rights of the elective franchise, soon showed the vanity of their supernatural pretentions, and the possibility of effectual resistance.  The infallibility of the Priest was broken down.  Wherever, therefore, there existed a conviction of the errors of the Romish system, there was wanted nothing more to complete the emancipation of the people, but personal protection and friendly countenance from Protestants.  These Lord Farnham was happily both willing and able to extend: and the result has been that singular moral phenomenon, which, in its consequences, promises the restoration of Ireland's happiness and glory.

[This extract give us an excellent insight into the kind of man the Reverend was.]

[Shanachai]

2A.

THE POTATO DISEASE.

[/b]

     The Irish opposition papers were last week silent in reference to the potato disease.  They can no longer ring their alarm-bells, and, instead of admitting the fact of the abatement of the disease, they prefer a dignified silence.  Even this is most gratifying.  The Waterford Mail has the following article:-
     "There never was seen in Ireland so large a crop of all kinds of corn as in the present year.  There never was in Ireland, either in extent or produce, so large a crop of potatoes.  Much loss has been allowed and compensated for by the overplus production of that esculent.  We have now been drawing on its supplies for nearly six months out of the twelve, and have experienced none of the symptoms of scarcity, whether in the abundance or quality of the supply or the rise of price.  Few men living remember potatoes at so low a price as at the present day, in this season of the year; and not more than perhaps one-fourth of the general crop - certainly not more than one-third -has been dug out.  The prevalent disease has also been checked by the cold weather, and an invaluable means of preservation has been discovered in the ventilating pits invented by Dr. Halpin, of Cavan.  With these facts before us - with the abundant produce of the corn crops in our view - with the precautionary measures of the government for providing additional food and extensive labour, also to be taken into account - what grounds exist for the alarm which it is the policy of the demagogue to aggravate?  We are at a loss to discover any motives but the worst; and those worst are not the fancies and conjectures of our own mind, but are suggested to our senses by what we see going forward in the political and executive circles of the repeal agitation."

- The Ipswich Journal, Saturday December 6th

[Shanachai]

     3A.

CIVIL SIDE.
[Before Mr. Justice Gazelee and a Special Jury.]

LIBEL.

The King v. William Henry Halpin - This was an indictment charging the defendant with the publication of a most wicked and malicious libel, concerning the plaintiff, in a certain pamphlet, of which the defendant was alleged to be the author. 
     Mr. Campbell, Mr. Phillpots, and Mr. C. Phillips, were for the prosecution; and Mr. Curwood and Mr. Busby for the defence.
     Mr. Campbell, in stating the case to the Jury, said, that the libel was one of a kind so peculiar, that he would not trouble them with any detailed account of its nature.  He felt, indeed, that it was of such a kind as to justify his putting it to his Learned Friend (Mr. Curwood) whether he would not, upon the mere proof of publication, submit to a verdict of guilty.  The prosecutor, Mr. Samuel Young Griffith, was a gentleman of the very highest respectability, the proprietor of the newspaper called The Cheltenham Chronicle, and the author of a valuable and useful work, of considerable celebrity, called "The Cheltenham Guide," which contained, besides the usual information, for the benefit of the casual visitor, an account of all the curiosities and antiquities of Cheltenhan and its neighbourhood, and traced its progressive rise from an inconsiderable village to its present condition of wealth and importance.  The defendant, Mr. Halpin, had been at one time in the employ of the plaintiff, as an assistant in the management of The Cheltenham Chronicle.  Before, however, he touched upon the libel, he would merely mention it as a kind of illustration of its merits, that the prosecutor, Mr. Griffiths, had been at one time the secretary of Mr. Webb, a man of eccentric habits, and who, it was probable, many of the Jury recollected as a man travelling as a species of philanthropist through the country for the purpose of seeking out those objects of distress to whom he could afford charitable relief.  The prosecutor, upon quitting the service of Mr. Webb, succeeded his brother as the Proprietor of The Cheltenham Chronicle, and the defendant then, under circumstances which it was not necessary to make public [a frustrating decision, this - since we could really use such information], entered his employment and continued in it until his conduct rendered it necessary that the connexion should be dissolved.  It was not necessary to state the reasons which induced the Proprietor to part with the defendant, but the defendant on that occasion declared, he should take an occasion to report it - and it appears he was as good as his word, for he must even then have been plotting the publication of one of the most atrocious libels which ever disgraced the public Press, or issued from the pen of any human being.  This libel was contained in a Pamphlet entitled "An Account of the Life and Adventures of James Webb, the noted Philanthropist, together with the Birth, Parentage, and Adventures of his equally notorious Secretary, detailing the whole of their most extraordinary adventures at different places, as collected and compiled from the manuscripts of the late Miles Watkins."  The defendant, as would be proved, took this pamphlet to a printer in London, and though he did not disclose his name, he told that printer that the pamphlet had received the approbation of Mr. Prince, an attorney of Cheltenham (the attorney for the defendant to defend this indictment), and that Mr. Prince had declared he did not consider it to be a libel, as no one could take it to himself.  This was Mr. Prince's law, and on its authority a Mr. Duncombe was induced to publish it.  It would be proved, that the defendant corrected the proof-sheets; that he gave directions for several copies to be sent to the different booksellers of Cheltenham; and that he actually received from the booksellers the price of the copies so sent.  That the defendant was the author of this pamphlet, and that he took means to distribute it through the county of Gloucester, would be proved beyond doubt, and still more, it would be proved, equally beyond doubt, that the defendant had inserted an advertisement in a Cheltenham Paper, calling attention to the work, and stimulating public curiosity to its perusal.  For that advertisement it would be proved the defendant had paid ten shillings, and he afterwards paid at the same rate for the insertion of a paragraph describing the contents of the work, and

[Shanachai]

     3B.

announcing its publication in the ensuing week.  The defendant, therefore, it appeared, had taken every opportunity to procure an extensive circulation of this slanderous libel, and it was not his fault that the character of the plaintiff had not been utterly ruined; but the firmness of the prosecutor was not to be shaken, although a copy of the pamphlet had been actually sent to his father-in-law, and firm in conscious innocence, he felt it to be a duty he owed his family and the public to bring the offender to this Court, to receive that punishment which his conduct deserved.  The book could not be opened at any one of its pages without disclosing libels the most scandalous and the most disgraceful.  It would be sufficient, perhaps, for the purpose of the prosecutor, to read one or two passages, but even in reading these passages, their purport must be explained to the Jury.  The name of the prosecutor was, they had already heard, Samuel Young Griffiths.  In the pamphlet he was described as young Zamiel Gripeall, and the Jury would hear the terms of that description.  The Learned Counsel then read a number of passages from the pamphlet, in which the most odious, revolting, and degrading propensities were ascribed to the prosecutor, Mr. Griffiths, and in which he was, even from his earliest youth, declared to be cunning, cruel, selfish, and dishonest.  The pamphlet then proceeded to describe the introduction of the author to Mr. Webb, and to charge young Zamiel with taking a 100 pound note out of that weak minded young man's (mr. Webb's) papers, which 100 pound note immediately afterwards disappeared.  It was then alleged that the prosecutor, young Zamiel, had acknowledged he never submitted a genuine petition to Mr. Webb or a real case of distress, but that, as beggars hire children to excite compassion, so he had hired persons to surround the door of Mr. Webb, and whenever a real case of distress was forced upon his notice, and he gave a pound or two to relieve it, Mr. Webb always paid him with 100l; and that where 50 pounds were given, he had appropriated to himself above 500 pounds.  After reading several extracts from the pamphlet, of the same nature, the Learned Counsel concluded by saying, that after laying these extracts before the Jury, he would content himself with calling the prosecutor into the box as a witness, & by subjecting him to the cross-examination of the defendant's Counsel, prove that there was nothing in the connection of the prosecutor with Mr. Webb, which could form a ground for the slightest slander.  That his character was irreproachable, and that no one had ever dared to impute to him the slightest act of misconduct, until he had been thus maliciously and unwarrantably assailed by the defendant.  The Learned Counsel then called the following witnesses: -
     John Duncomb, the younger: I am a printer and publisher, living in Queen Street, Holborn, London; I received from Mr. Halpin, during the last summer, a manuscript pamphlet, concerning Mr. Webb, the philanthropist; I saw Mr. Halpin several times while the work was going on, and he desired me to print five hundred copies; after it was printed he said he wished to send a copy to his attorney; this copy he enclosed when it was ready, to Mr. Prince, who was, he said, his attorney, and he sent a letter at the same time; Mr. Halpin corrected the proof-sheets, and he gave me directions to send one hundred copies to Mr. Williams, a bookseller, of Cheltenam; fifty to Bettison; fifty to Weller; twenty-five to Harper; and twelve to Miss. Roberts; three of these persons are, to my knowledge, booksellers in Cheltenham; I received also a list of individuals to whom copies were to be sent; Mr. Naylor, of the Plough, and Mr. Pruen were to have copies; Mr. Naylor, I have since heard, is Mr. Griffith's father-in-law; a copy was also to be sent to Mr. Nicholls; after the copy was forwarded to Mr. Prince, Mr. Halpin called and said he would take them himself, as he understood the pamphlet was not a libel, and as his Attorney said so, he would come forward and acknowledge they were the parties [Halpin orders 500 copies of the pamphlet to be printed and then consults his Attorney for legal advice on the issue of libel?  This seems back to front to me, and suggests Halpin had every intention of publishing the material, regardless of legal opinion.  Only long-lasting, deep-rooted enmity accounts for that kind of recklessness.  And he makes sure Griffith's father-in-law gets a copy?  Clearly his desire to hurt is intense.  What could Griffiths have done to Halpin to prompt that kind of revenge?].  He expressed some wish to have a frontispiece of young Zamiel, the principal personage in the book; and he intimated an opinion that there he had seen a print of Madame Vestris in Captain Macheath, which might do, but he could not get a copy of it.  After the publication

[Shanachai]

     3C.

I received a note from Mr. Halpin, telling me there were some persons belonging to Cheltenham in town, and entreating me to be cautious in my conduct [This note was produced and identified].
     Cross-examined: I can't say he mentioned Mr. Prince as his Attorney; when the parcel was sent off, an action was threatened about a month after against me, but no action was brought; Mr. Halpin did not say Mr. Prince had seen the manuscript of the pamphlet.
     Mr. George Arthur Williams: I am a bookseller of Cheltenham, and remember receiving, in September last, a parcel containing the Adventures of Mr. Webb; it contained books for other booksellers - for Mr. Harper, Mr. Weller, Mr. Bettison, and Miss Williams; I sent those books to their directions immediately upon the arrival of the parcel.
     Cross-examined: I have known the prosecutor sixteen years, and the defendant nine or ten years; I have sold some of these publications, for I began to sell them immediately after their arrival in September; I sold about sixteen copies out of the 100 sent to me, and received no copies of this pamphlet from any other person; I do not know whether I sold this copy, but it was one of my 100; I gave Mr. Griffith's (the prosecutor's) solicitor three or four copies; the remainder I gave to the prosecutor, and I kept one myself.  Before the last Assizes the prosecutor threatened to proceed against me, and I gave up my remaining copies since these Assizes; the prosecutor threatened to prosecute me at the time I received the pamphlets, and told me he had three sealed copies, which had been purchased by different persons for that purpose; he served me with notice on the first day I began to sell them, and told me if I had not sold any more, he would forgive me for all I had sold previous to the notice; he afterwards said he would bring an action against me in 24 hours, but I snapped my fingers at him, and defied him.  That was soon after the last Assizes; and no action, indictment, or criminal information, was brought against me.
     Mr. Curwood was proceeding to put questions to the witness with respect to his knowledge of the character of Mr. Griffith, the prosecutor, when Mr. Campbell objected to that course, and Mr. Justice Gazelee decided that questions of that kind, upon the trial of an indictment, could not be put by the defendant's Counsel.
     Mr. John Joseph Hadley, proprietor of The Cheltenham Journal, produced the manuscript of two advertisements inserted in his paper, by Mr. Halpin, and announcing the appearance of the pamphlet containing the Adventures of Webb and his Secretary.  Mr. Halpin paid for these advertisements.
     Mr. Busby, for the defendant, submitted to the Court that the parcel sent by Duncombe was not sufficiently identified.
     Mr. Duncombe was then recalled, and proved the pamphlet produced to be one of those he printed, but he was unable to say whether it was one of those sent to Cheltenham, because he did not make up the parcel, or carry it to the coach-office.
     Mr. Justice Gazelee thought this sufficient evidence, and Mr. Samuel Young Griffith, the prosecutor, was then called: I am now the proprietor of The Cheltenham Chronicle, and have been so for ten years; I was secretary to Mr. Webb in the year 1814, and had a salary of 250l  a year; I remained in his employment about twelve months; I have resided in Cheltenham ever since the year 1818; I employed Mr. Halpin to assist me in conducting the paper; he left me about fifteen months ago; he was so dissipated I could not well keep him; and yet I could not, from the nature of his engagement, discharge him, for it is not expired yet; but he told me he could not stay any longer, unless I gave him a larger salary.  I refused, and he said I should repent it, as he was at full liberty to leave me upon giving me so many weeks notice.  I was bound to keep him, if he desired it, to the termination of his engagement.  I thought by telling me I should repent it, that he meant to start a rival paper.  I believe that I am the person called "Young Zamiel" in the pamphlet.
     Cross-examined: I do not understand the passages of the pamphlet to relate to me because they refer to transactions with which I am acquainted, but because I was secretary to Mr. Webb; before I became secretary to Mr. Webb, I was part proprietor with my brother in The Cheltenham Chronicle; I first became acquainted with Mr. Webb in 1813; he was a very liberal man; about 600l or 700l came into my hands to distribute as charity; I never received a large sum of money at Dover, nor did I ever

[Shanachai]

     3D.

follow Mr. Webb along with a Mr. Miles Watkins; I never received a large sum of money from Mr. Webb; he was a strong-minded man, and not an idiot; I never heard of any affair at Brighton, and although I am the proprietor of a newspaper, I never heard of the way in which this great philanthropist ended his career; I left him because he was going to the Continent, and I followed him to Calais with a trunk, according to his directions; he treated me kindly to the last, and told me as he was going to the Continent, he did not require my services any longer; he never told me that at a Police-office; I have seen Miles Watkins at Dover, but I never slept in the same room with him; I have seen a Mr. Sharman, a London attorney, but I never heard he was employed to frame a bill of indictment against me; I swear positively that Miles Watkins never slept with me in the same room in Dover; Mr. Williams first brought me one of the pamphlets; I told him I understood he recommended Halpin to get the work printed at Duncombe's in London, and threatened to prosecute him; he never told me that I might bring my action, for it was substantially true, and he would justify its facts; I had action against Mr. Gardner, at Gloucester, and my attorney can tell how and why that action was compromised; Mr. Gardner consented to submit to a verdict for 1,000l damages, and make an apology to the effect that he was exceedingly sorry for having mixed himself up in such a villainous transaction.
     Mr. Justice Gazelee here objected to this course of examination; and the witness said, "My Lord, I am seeking for these inquiries."
     Examination resumed: I know a Mr. Hayward, but he never accused me from extorting money from Mr. Webb, nor did I ever give him money to say nothing about it; Mr. Hayward is here.
     Re-examined: This is a most infamous calumny.  I published the apology of Mr. Gardner in our report of the proceedings at the last Assizes.
     The apology, expressing regret for having circulated what must be considered a foul calumny, was then put in and read. 
     On re-examination, the witness repeated what he asserted before, that he had not received any money of Mr. Webb beyond his salary, and that they parted on good terms.  Before Halpin came into my employment, I received a letter directed to my deceased brother, begging in the most humble terms for employment; I then employed him, and gave him clothes to make him fit to appear in; he was so destitute of clothes at that time, that the printers considered him to be a journeyman printer out of employment, and were deliberating about relieving him.
     Mr. Henry Sisson, a druggist, of Cheltenham, proved a meeting with Halpin since the publication of the Book, and that he told Halpin it was a disgraceful publication, and that the author ought not to be submitted into civilised society; witness told him [Halpin] he was suspected to be the author, and Halpin replied, that whoever was the author, he had motives in abundance for writing the Book.
     Mr. Curwood then addressed the Jury for the defendant, and observed that he did so with considerable difficulty, as the case was oppressive to his feelings.  He begged it, however, to be understood that he was totally unaquainted with either of the parties, and spoke solely in the strict discharge of his duty and according to the tenor of his instructions.  If the course of defence he had adopted was injurious, the consequences must fall upon those who had instructed him to adopt that course; for he was willing to admit, that if the accusations contained in the Pamphlet were wholly untrue, it was a very bad libel indeed.  Whatever might, however, be the opinion of the Jury, he could not but feel that Mr. Griffiths had very little to be proud of in this inquiry.  If the accusations were as false as his Learned Friend (Mr. Campbell) was pleased to call them, why, he would ask, had not the plaintiff, who talked so much of the justification of his character, brought an action, and then the defendant would have an opportunity of pleading, and proving a justification?  Or why had he not filed a criminal information, when the defendant might have been called upon to answer for the charges he had brought forward?  Fortunately he conceived it to be the law of libel was altered; and if the Jury could not bring themselves to believe that the defendant had been actuated by malicious motives, they were at liberty and bound to acquit him.  The Learned Counsel then entered into a general review of the Law of Libel, and observed, in conclusion, that if his client had not been a man of sense and capable of judging for himself, he (Mr. C.) would have felt some difficulty in adopting

[Shanachai]

     3E.

such a line of defence in a proceeding of this kind, where he was precluded from calling evidence to vindicate his conduct.  The Learned Counsel then commented at some length upon the evidence of Mr. Griffiths, and upon the course he had pursued, which precluded the defendant from calling witnesses to substantiate his statements.  It was due, he observed, to Mr. Prince to say, that he had never been consulted about the publication of the pamphlet, or seen it until after it was printed.
     Mr. Busby then called Miles Watkins: I knew Mr. Griffiths for some years past; I met him in 1814, your Honour, in Piccadilly, and I mean to tell nothing but the truth; Mr. Griffiths went to hire two saddle horses; Mr. Webb had left London, and I went after him with Mr. Griffiths to Dover; we went to Wright's Hotel, your Honour; Mr. Griffiths and I slept there in the same bed for about a quarter of an hour, and the chambermaid came up.
     Mr. Justice Gazelee interrupted the further progress of this examination [just when it was getting interesting], by declaring it wholly irrelevant to the question.
     Mr. Campbell then briefly addressed the Jury in reply.  Mr. Justice Gazelee having observed it was scarcely necessary upon such evidence, the Learned Counsel said he merely wished to remark that the prosecutor had brought an action, and having obtained an abject apology, and the disclosure of the name of the real author, he felt himself bound to adopt this course in order to bring him to the punishment he deserved.  He concluded by expressing his regret, from what he had seen of this case, that the pillory was abolished as a punishment for libel; but he had one consolation, and that was, the tread-mill still remained.
     Mr. Justice Gazelee having briefly summed up the leading facts of the case, the Jury almost immediately pronounced the defendant Guilty.

- The Morning Chronicle, Monday November 24th 1828.

[William Henry Halpin spent a year in prison.  It didn't seem to hurt his prospects, because he went on to become a prominent journalist in the provincial press in England, spent time in France editing a popular magazine arguing for closer ties between England and France, became a Director of many boards of investors set up during the Railway Mania in the 1840s, before being ruined by the bursting of the speculative Railway bubble (the more things change...) and retiring to bankruptcy in Dublin.  A final point worth mentioning here is that Samuel Young Griffith was an Engraver - an art practiced by quite a few Portarlington and Dublin Halpins.]

[kenneth cooke]

Re my post 216 of 28 June-
I have just got the copy of the deed I mentioned:
Strange to Halpen, Indented deeds of Lease & Release 5 & 6 April 1771

A. John Strange of Dublin, pensioner of Chelsea, England, son of late John Strange of Abbyleix QCo and Margt Gorman, sister of Wm Gorman, apothecary,
of Maryborough, deceased.

B. Mark Halpen of Ballynamoney Q.Co., gentleman,

A. to B. The Tenement or Plott of ground, formerly called George Early's plott, (formerly possessed by Mr. Wm Gorman)
Signed & Dated 3.5.1771

What is interesting is:
M H did live at Ballynamoney
He was alive in 1771
The vendor was the nephew of a previous owner, an apothecary.
The Plott thickens !
Ken

[Shanachai]

     We really have to do something about Ken's punning.  Maybe the moderator should get involved.