Halpins of Wicklow, etc. - Part 4

[Shanachai]

Continued from the previous page.  Part 3.

An adjourned special meeting of the Town Commissioners was held on Thursday evening.  On the motion of Mr. Henry McPhail, seconded by Mr J. D. Smith (in the absence of Dr. Nolan), the chair was taken by Mr John Chapman.

Other Commissioners present: Messrs. William Magee, J.P., Francis Wakefield, John Arthur Travers, Thomas Doolittle, James W. Dillon, Thomas Troy, John Hayden, Thomas Smith, John O'Brien, Henry McPhail, Michael McCabe, J. D. Smith and William McPhail.  Robert Halpin, Secretary.

The Corporation Land.

At the request of the Chairman, Mr Wakefield proposed: "That the tenants on Carr's late holding and the Green Hill field lately in possession of Mr James Byrne, be allowed the first half-year's rent for such portions of their land as is in raw stubble or broken ground.''
Mr Henry McPhail seconded the resolution which was passed unanimously.

Refusal of Mr Charles Kavanagh to Sign Letter of Proposal For Crops.

The Secretary said: All the tenants have signed the letters of proposal for the crops, with the exception of Mr Charles Kavanagh, who refused to acknowledge that he had given up the land, and expressed himself so that I understood him to say that he would hold the land in defiance of the Commissioners.
Mr Wakefield - Is there any person representing Mr Kavanagh here?
The Secretary - I think not, Sir: All the other tenants signed with the greatest pleasure.
Mr Henry McPhail - I think Mr Kavanagh is under some misapprehension, and I am very sorry for it as he is a most respectable man.  Mr Chairman, did not Mr Kavanagh some time ago express to you his willingness to take his crops in the usual way like the other tenants?
The Chairman - He did.
Mr Henry McPhail - It is extraordinary that he should change his mind.
Mr J D Smith - What does he mean by setting the Commissioners at defiance?  Is it his intention to hold the land?
Mr Henry McPhail - We cannot answer that.
Mr J D Smith - Has he got possession?
The Chairman - No.
Mr Hayden - I propose that the present Chairman tender the agreement to Mr Kavanagh for signature.
Mr J D Smith - I second that.
Mr Henry McPhail - I think that would not be a judicious course.  You have offered the crops to Mr Kavanagh on the same terms as to the other tenants.  All the others have come forward and signed the agreement most willingly, and although Mr Kavanagh is a deserving man and should receive a great deal of consideration from us, still he has refused, and we must take some other steps to meet that refusal.
The Chairman - I was the principal person who induced the Commissioners to give the tenants their crops, as I thought it was only fair and right that they should get them.  I think it my duty now to say that the Commissioners ought to carry out their resolutions strictly.  With regard to these crops, as in every other part of the business they have gone through, the Commissioners have acted fairly and justly in my opinion, and I believe, in the opinion of most people, and I think they ought to carry out this resolution as strictly as all the others.  I am satisfied that if they do carry it out determinedly, but at the same time justly, it will be agreed to without any hesitation, because there is nothing unfair, or unreasonable, or unjust in it.  All the other tenants were most thankful to us for having treated them so kindly.  If we submit to what Mr Kavanagh is doing we will upset our arrangements with five new tenants.

A lengthy discussion then followed.  Ultimately, on the suggestion of Mr Henry McPhail, a messenger was sent to ask Mr Kavanagh to come to the meeting in order that he might give an explanation.  However, he refused to attend, and after some further discussion, Mr Wakefield proposed and Mr J D Smith seconded, that thhe Secretary should write the following letter to Mr Kavanagh: -

"Sir - I am directed by the Wicklow Town Commissioners to inform you that unless you sign the agreement relative to the crops, the Commissioners will otherwise dispose of them.  You will please reply to this by Monday next.''

This letter was agreed to by the Commissioners and the proposition of Mr Wakefield passed.

[Shanachai]

Part 4.

The Green Hill Field.

The Chairman announced that Mr Thomas Doolittle refused to hold the Green Hill field which was allotted to him.
Mr Wajkefield - Would his brother take it?  I would propose that it should not be taken out of the family.
Mr Dillon - Captain Doolittle considers that the field is out of the way and that the rent is very high.
The Chairman - I objected to the rent of £4 being being put on that field as I thought it was too high.  However, the Commissioners settled, and determinedly settled it at that rate.
Mr Henry McPhail strongly advised Mr Doolittle to hold the field for the present, and said that after a time the rent might be reduced.
Mr Doolittle - I will not take it, nor will I subject myself to the obloquy [strong public condemnation] that has been thrown upon those Commissioners who it has been stated have got land by preconcerted arrangements.  I will never give the public a chance of casting reproach upon me for being concerned in such work.  I was reared in the principles of a gentleman*, and I shall always act upon them.  (Mr Doolittle then left the meeting.)

Mr Hayden proposed ''That in the event of Mr Doolittle finally deciding not to hold the Green Hill field, it be given to Mr Parker.''
Mr Wakefield seconded that proposition.
Mr Henry McPhail - I think Mr Doolittle is a little excited this evening, as he is if the opinion that he has not been fairly dealt with.  Mr Parker has as good a right to land as any man that has got it, but we should give Mr Doolittle time to consider.
Mr Hayden - I mean that of course he should have full time for consideration.
Mr O'Brien proposed as an amendment (on Mr Hayden's resolution) ''that the question stand adjourned until Monday to receive the final answer of Mr Doolittle.''
Mr Dillon seconded the amendment.
On a division the votes were: - For the amendment: Messrs. O'Brien, Dillon, J D Smith, Mr Troy, T Smith, and Mr McCabe (6).
Against: Messrs. Magee, Wakefield, W. McPhail, Travers, Hayden and H McPhail (6).
The Chairman gave his casting vote against the amendment and the resolution was carried.

Distribution of Land.

Mr Henry McPhail proposed that Mr Fox should get the two fields taken from Mr Connor.  He said - From the state the far field is in, if you don't give Mr Fox the two fields, one will be of no use to him, at least for some time.  Talking of the expenditure on the Corporation property let me remind you that no one has expended so large an amount of money in the town as the Fox family, and I think it is only due to them that they should get the fullest accommodation.  I think they have been overlooked, and we should give those two fields to them.
Several Commissioners stated that Mr Fox only wanted one field.
A resolution proposing that ''Mr Fox get the grass field'' was then passed.
Mr Wakefield proposed that the other field should be given to Mr Edward Doolittle.
Mr Dillon seconded.
Mr Hayden - I have an amendment to propose, and that is, that the question stand over till Monday's meeting.
Mr O'Brien seconded Mr Hayden's amendment, which was carried by a majority of 8 to 4.
The resolution proposed by Mr Wakefield was accordingly lost.

[Shanachai]

Part 5.

Arthur Healy's Holding.

It was passed ''That  Arthur Healy be allowed to sell his goodwill in his holding, subject to the usual building requirements of the Commissioners.''

Harbour Master's Salary.

A prolonged discussion then ensued on the harbour dues, Harbour Master's salary, &c., a full report of which we are reluctantly compelled to omit through want of space.
Mr O'Brien proposed ''that the harbour dues at present in the bank be given to the Harbour Master in part payment of his salary.''
Mr Dillon having seconded this proposition, it was passed.
It was suggested that, if the harbour dues were not sufficient to pay the salary of the Harbour Master, his services should be discontinued.

The Rents.

The claims of several creditors having been brought under the notice of the Commissioners, and finding that there were no funds to meet their demands, attention was called to the large number of the tenants on the Corporation estate being in arrear.  A resolution long since adopted was read, in which the agent was requested to institute legal proceedings in every instance for the recovery of the rents.  The Board was of the unanimous opinion that inasmuch as the tenants who are defaulters held at very low rent, the most rigorous means should be taken to enforce punctual payments.  This ought to be a caution to the tenants to come forward at once and pay their rents.
The Board then adjourned till seven o'clock on Monday evening next.  The meeting terminated about 10.30pm.


*Wiki: The word gentleman as an index of rank had already become of doubtful value before the great political and social changes of the 19th century gave to it a wider and essentially higher significance. The change is well illustrated in the definitions given in the successive editions of the Encyclopædia Britannica. In the 5th edition (1815), "a gentleman is one, who without any title, bears a coat of arms, or whose ancestors have been freemen." In the 7th edition (1845) it still implies a definite social status: "All above the rank of yeomen." In the 8th edition (1856), this is still its "most extended sense"; "in a more limited sense" it is defined in the same words as those quoted above from the 5th edition; but the writer adds, "By courtesy this title is generally accorded to all persons above the rank of common tradesmen when their manners are indicative of a certain amount of refinement and intelligence."

The Reform Act 1832 did its work; the middle classes came into their own, and the word gentleman came in common use to signify not a distinction of blood, but a distinction of position, education and manners.

By this usage, the test is no longer good birth or the right to bear arms, but the capacity to mingle on equal terms in good society.

- The Wicklow Newsletter, Saturday, June 20, 1868.

[Shanachai]

Dublin Markets.

For The Week Ending Friday, June 19.

Cattle Market, Yesterday.

We had an increased supply of stock at market this morning, the numbers being 1,170 beasts, and 7,720 sheep and lambs, against 1,013 beasts and 7,178 sheep and lambs last week.  Owing to the great drought and very scorching weather, which is producing much more injurious effects in England than in this country, the English graziers are forcing their stock into market, and that, with a very large importation of Spanish cattle, has caused prices to give way considerably.  We reduce our quotations today, beef being sold at 63s to 67s 6d per cwt., and mutton 5.5 to 6.5 per lb.  Lambs, 14s to 30s, and, even at this reduction, a clearance could not be made.

Dublin, Wicklow, & Wexford Railway.

A meeting of the holders of the 5 per cent preference shares of 1859 and 1860 in the Dublin, Wicklow and Wexford Railway Company was held on Monday last, at the invitation of the directors.  Mr A Parker, JP, occupied the chair in the absence of the chairman, Mr Waldron, and informed those present that the board would not be able to pay off the shares of the 30th inst., as agreed upon.  It was contended by the shareholders that their stock held priority of all, with the exception of the debentures, and, after a long discussion, it was agreed to refer the question to a committee, who will obtain counsel's opinion and report to an adjourned meeting on the 29th inst.

Release of Mr Pigott.*

Mr Boyd, Governor of Richmond Bridewell, received on Monday night an order from the Lords Justices to release Mr Pigott, of the Irishman, from custody on the 22nd of August, on his perfecting the recognizances required by his sentence.  Mr Pigott will thus have been subjected to six instead of twelve months' imprisonment.

- The Wicklow Newsletter, Saturday, June 20, 1868.

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Pigott

[Shanachai]

Part 1.

The best way to present Francis Wakefield is through his own words and deeds.  The less I have to say about the man the easier it will be for readers to form their own impression of him.  A few facts will be helpful, though.  Wakefield was born in Mansefield, Nottinghamshire,  in about 1815 and came from a long line of reformist clergymen and liberal businessmen.  He was an industrialist before arriving in Ireland in around 1843, and probably settled in Broomfield House, Wicklow, as a cattleman sometime in the early 1850s.  In the mid-1860s he took an increasing interest in local politics and put himself forward as the radical candidate for Wicklow in the general election of 1868, stepping aside when Earl Fitzwilliam decided to challenge him for the seat.  Wakefield appears as a member of the Wicklow Board of Commissioners at around this time, and soon after secured the Chairmanships of the Board of Commissioners and the Harbour Board, with Robert Wellington Halpin serving as his Secretary in both instances.  After a gallant attempt to reform the way business was conducted in Wicklow, Wakefield was forced out of office by a combination of obstructive local monopolists, personal financial difficulties, and bad eyesight.  He eventually retired to England in the late 1870s, and died in 1896. 

Before presenting himself to the Wicklow people as a candidate for MP, Wakefield delivered a series of public speeches outlining his political views.  I will publish extracts from those speeches over the next few weeks, along with reports from the Wicklow Newsletter about his activities as a Commissioner.  By revealing something of Wakefield's political views, I'm hoping to shed a little light on the political views of his closest aid and friend, Robert Wellington Halpin. 

Wakefield believed Ireland was badly governed.  He felt the best way to change things was to win the support of the British public for radical reform.  Part of the problem, he believed, was a lack of insight into the plight of the Irish people.  To remedy that problem, and to bring the British people up to speed on what was happening in Ireland, Wakefield published a book, part memoir, part history, part political manifesto, called A Saxon's Remedy for Irish Discontent (1868).  The book takes the British reader on a brief tour through the principal counties of Ireland, and produces what I regard as a fair and well-informed account of the main events in Irish history up to and including 1868.  What follows are a few extracts from that book.  I plan to publish a few more before the week is out.

[Shanachai]

Part 2.

A Saxon’s Remedy for Irish Discontent.

In Queen Elizabeth’s time it was a doubtful point if her authority would be established, as army after army was defeated.  The disgrace of Essex was partly owing to his bad success in Ireland.  However, the climax of confusion ensued in Charles I.’s reign.  The Irish as a nation remained true to the Roman Catholic faith, and when they rose in revolt, a dreadful massacre of Protestants took place.  This massacre was the turning point of Irish history; it was the cause of Cromwell’s fearful reprisals, and of the division of the inhabitants into two distinct bodies – first, the English or Protestant party; secondly, the Irish or Roman Catholic party.  The one, as I will proceed to explain, became possessed of all the property, power, and emoluments; the other were the serfs, who, as long as they were perfectly docile and obedient, had a right to exist, and nothing more. 

No history is more perplexing than that of the Civil Wars in Ireland in the time of Charles I.  Many of the leaders were continually changing sides; and when the victorious Parliamentarians of England turned their attention to Ireland, it is recorded that they actually captured and threw into the sea a body of soldiers who had been actively fighting against the rebels.  When Cromwell took the matter in hand, he acted in his usual straightforward manner.  The principal cities were taken; where resistance was offered, no quarter was given; and the ‘’Curse of Cromwell’’ is to this day a favourite mode of wishing evil fortune.  His plan was simple and thorough: the native Irishry, as they were called, were to be driven to Connaught, the other three parts of Ireland were to be occupied by English and Scotch settlers.  In the northern districts, the English companies and Scotch settlers occupied the lands, to the exclusion of the ancient inhabitants.  The superior energy of the people, the favour shown to Protestants, and the prevalence of a custom that no tenant can be evicted except for non-payment of rent, also that he may dispose of the right to occupy his land should he wish to quit, have made the province of Ulster quite different from the rest of Ireland.

In Leinster and Munster many Roman Catholics, rebels, and partisans of Charles I., were killed, dispossessed, sold as slaves to the plantations, or driven into Connaught; but many were quietly allowed to remain by the English or native Protestants who had acquired their land; and many took to the mountains, and becoming Tories [sic] plundered where formerly they had received rents.

When James II. Attempted to re-establish the Catholic faith, the times looked better for these dispossessed gentlemen; some of them resumed their old inheritances when James himself came to Ireland, aided by the French; and if Derry had been taken, the Protestants would have suffered the horrors of Drogheda; but after the siege of that town was raised – after the ‘’Boyne and Aughrim’’ – and after the surrender of Limerick by Sarsfield, Protestantism again became completely in the ascendant.

Looking back to the Irish massacres, the constant trouble given by that nation, and the necessity for putting down at once and for ever Papal domination, one cannot wonder at the wholesale transference of property from the vanquished to the successful party, or at the severe enactments levelled against Irish and Roman Catholics.  Had the other party been victorious, they would probably have been as bloodthirsty and unrelenting.

In those days almost every bit of real property and every particle of power were taken from the Irish, who were looked upon as an alien and conquered race.  William’s Dutch favourites received whole counties of land; and French refugees, flying from the bigotry of Louis XIV., recovered in Ireland and from Papists the equivalent of property they had lost in France for having protested against Popery.  Nevertheless, William III was blamed by the English Parliament for being too indulgent to Irish Catholics, and the English Parliament was appealed to by the Catholics themselves as being more honourable in its conduct than the Parliament of Ireland.  It cannot, therefore, be doubted that the Protestants of Ireland, many of whom had lately endured the extremities of fire and sword, strained the penal laws to the utmost against the conquered race.  In one respect, however, both Protestants and Catholics alike were unjustly treated; and the celebrated ‘’Drapier Letters’’ of Swift are a lasting proof of the intolerant attempts of England to crush all efforts to establish manufactures in Ireland.

The position of the new landlords required that they should not altogether break with the native population.  A great tract of land is of little use to a man unless there are labourers to till it.  Many of the sons or relations of the former proprietors agreed to pay rent for liberty to farm part of their late possessions; and leases for ever, for lives, or for long terms of years, were frequent during the eighteenth century.

[All italics are mine.]

[Shanachai]

Part 3.

Gradually, as the population increased, the subdivision of land and the rents increased also; and as there was hardly any trade or manufactures, as the gentry were for the most part reckless and improvident, the situation of the smaller farmers and the peasantry became wretched in the extreme.  All this time the laws against Papists continued not only severe, but absurd.  A Roman Catholic was not allowed to possess a horse of over five pounds’ value, and instances are told of Irish gentlemen being compelled to dismount and give up their valuable hunters for this sum.  At length came the American declaration of independence, followed by the French Revolution.

- (pp. 106 – 111.)

On the English backlash during the 1798 rebellion:

Then came the reprisals; many shocking cruelties had been perpetrated by the insurgents, but nothing could exceed the barbarities with which they were avenged.  Lord Cornwallis had commanded in America and in India, but he was disgusted with the evil spirit which possessed his party.  A clergyman at Arklow, who had been obliged to fly for his life from the rebels, has left his written opinion that the Royalist yeomanry were the more bloodthirsty of the two.  Protestant gentlemen, Catholic priests, and Presbyterian parsons perished on the gibbet; surgeons who had been compelled to dress the wounds of rebels, kind-hearted gentlemen who had used their influence to save life, were shot by martial law, on no other evidence than the accusation of those they had benefited; the summary executions without evidence of guilt, the wanton destruction of life and property, are chronicled not only in the pages of novelists, but in the diaries of English officers; and while they are remembered with horror and indignation by the descendants of the victims in Ireland and America, it is to be hoped that it is also recollected that it was the Irish Royalists and yeomanry who were eager for bloodshed and rapine, and the English Government and soldiery who repressed instead of encouraged excesses.

I am particular in dilating upon the events of 1798, because, after the redistribution of lands under Cromwell and William III, it is the most important point for the consideration of us as Englishmen.  The Protestant party always refer to it as a proof that in the memory of living men the Catholics have shown themselves sanguinary rebels, not fit to be trusted with power.  It has kept alive among them that feeling of mingled hatred, fear, and scorn with which the Irish were regarded by the English colonists of two hundred years ago.  On the other hand, ’98 is still bitterly remembered by many Irishmen.  A man who can dimly remember his father and mother being shot, and all the family property destroyed, because his name happened to be the same as that of a rebel leader, can hardly be expected to have friendly feelings towards the sons of the Yeomanry captain who perpetrated the outrage; and it is hard to persuade the country people that a gentleman who is crippled for life, and who happens to be the immediate descendant of an officer who cut off the head of a poor carman for not bringing up ammunition quickly enough, is not expiating his ancestor’s crime.  The sons of the men who were flogged, had pitched caps put on their heads, or were scored with a hot iron, not because they had done anything wrong, but to force them to give or invent evidence, must have ugly thoughts in their minds now and then, particularly if they are turned out of their own little holdings; and if they emigrate to America may tell tales of the condition of Ireland calculated to rouse up dangerous feelings in the breasts of their countrymen.

– (pp. 113 – 116.)

[Shanachai]

Part 4.

[After the defeat of the United Irishmen, the Act of Union was implemented, ending Grattan’s Parliament and breaking every promise made to Irish Catholics.  In the wake of the Union and the broken promises, Daniel O’Connell agitated for emancipation.  See: http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/history/18001877.html ]

During this period agrarian outrages and assassinations prevailed to a dreadful extent.  Even in those days of high prices the land was let as high as it could bear.  When the rent was paid, tithes for the maintenance of the Protestant Church were levied.  When an election took place the tenantry often had to vote for their Protestant landlords or be turned out of their farms.  There was no Poor Law – thus to be turned out was to starve; nevertheless the farmers often voted contrary to their landlord’s dictation, and were evicted.  But the landlord, his agent, or the new tenant, ran imminent risk from the secret societies.

After the Peace in 1815 [when Wellington defeated Napoleon at Waterloo, and Robert Wellington Halpin, Wicklow’s Town Clerk and Wakefield’s agent, was born] , rents still remained high, though the price of produce fell.  Wholesale eviction was the order of the day, and Whiteboys, Cravats, and Shanavests tried, sentenced, and executed those whom they considered their persecutors.
 
Soon after George IV’s accession to the throne, he visited Ireland, and those who advised him to take such a step well calculated on the extraordinary veneration the people have in Ireland for the name of King and the visible presence of their ruler.  Everyone was exuberantly loyal, broken promises were forgotten, and even O’Connell was fervent in his devotion to the stout elderly gentleman, who hardly dare show himself in the streets of London, so unpopular had he become, owing to the unseemly display connected with the funeral of Queen Caroline.

No measures favourable to Ireland followed this visit; but the Marquis of Wellesley, who again became Lord Lieutenant, held an even hand over Catholics and Protestants, and far-sighted men perceived that the inconsistency which had now prevailed for thirty years, of allowing Catholics to vote for members of Parliament, but not to sit there themselves, could no longer be kept up.

In 1829 the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel perceived that the measure of relief which had been so long promised to the Roman Catholics could not be delayed, and the Act known as ‘’Catholic Emancipation’’ was finally carried; though the King, even at the last moment, stated he was coerced into it, and his brother, the Duke of Cumberland, was vehement in his opposition.  The Duke of Clarence, afterwards William IV, made a great impression by his statement of the joy which would have been felt by Nelson and other naval heroes had they been alive to see the Irish Catholic sailors, who had joined with Protestants in defending the British flag, made equal with themselves in civil and religious liberty.

– (pp. 120 – 122.)

[Shanachai]

Part 5.

Wakefield moves on to focus on O’Connell’s activism after Catholic Emancipation:

Agrarian outrages still continued, and many of the most eminent of the Roman Catholic divines acknowledged the necessity for the Coercion Bill.  The truth was, that the secret societies went far beyond even the ‘’wild justice of revenge’’ O’Connell talked of.  Whole families were murdered, not because they had violated any of the unwritten laws respecting land, but because one of them had resisted being plundered of arms, or was perhaps suspected of having given evidence about some petty matter.

No doubt the energies of O’Connell and the melodies of Moore riveted the public attention to the wrongs of Ireland, but it will always be a debated point if the constant promise of ‘’Repeal,’’ the virulent abuse of everyone who opposed him, and the blind obedience exacted from the other Irish members, did not delay many necessary measures.  The application of the new Corporation Act to Ireland was certainly put off because the English Members of the House of Commons feared O’Connell would rule all municipal elections.

However, the Reform Bill of 1832, and many subsequent Whig measures, were carried partly through the influence of O’Connell and his supporters.  As session succeeded session more useful enactments were passed: Ireland obtained a Poor Law, and the grant to Maynooth College was much increased.  It was at this time that the House of Commons lost another grand opportunity of gratifying the Catholic party in Ireland, by refusing to throw open Trinity College to all denominations.  Mr Sheil*, who had more polished eloquence than O’Connell, made a magnificent speech in favour of equality in all respects – ‘’social, political, official, and ecclesiastical.’’  ‘’If,’ said he, ‘you apply your 18,000l a year to the establishment of new professorships and new fellowships in the Metropolitan and National Institutions, Englishmen will get a value in peace, in contentment, in pacificatory results for their money.’’

In 1842 O’Connell renewed his agitation for Repeal in a most energetic manner, and in 1843 gathered together immense numbers of people, whom he addressed in language so heart-stirring, and so provocative to insurrection, that even he could not have kept them in check (and he was a man who always deprecated actual treason) if his hearers had been excited by whisky.  But at that time Father Matthew, the celebrated Apostle of Temperance, had almost as much influence as O’Connell himself, and had completely changed the habits of the people.

*Sheil: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lalor_Sheil