Chapter XVI: Appendix: Note F (1)

THE "MOONLIGHTERS" AND "HOME RULE."

(Vol. ii. p. 38.)

On Monday, the 1st of February 1886, the _Irish Times_ published the following story from Tralee, near the scene of the "boycotting," temporal and spiritual, of the unfortunate daughters of Mr. Jeremiah Curtin, murdered in his own house by "moonlighters":--

"TRALEE, _Sunday_.

"It was stated that the bishop had ordered Mass to be celebrated
for them--the Curtins--but this did not take place. At the village
of Firies a number of people had assembled. They stopped loitering
about the place in the forenoon, waiting for a meeting of the
National League, which was subsequently held. A threatening notice
was discovered posted up on the door of a house formerly used as a
forge. It ran as follows:--

"'NOTICE.--If we are honoured by the presence of the bloodthirsty
perjurers at Mass on any of the forthcoming Sundays, take good care
you'll stand up very politely and walk out. Don't be under the
impression that all the Moonlighters are dead, and that this notice
is a child's play, as Shawn Nelleen titled the last one. I'll be
sure to keep my word, as you will see before long, so have no
welcome for the Curtins, and, above all, let no one work for them
in any way. As you respect the Captain, and as you value your own
life, abide by this notice.'--Signed, 'A MOONLIGHTER.'

"The above notice was written on tea paper in large legible style,
and evidently by an intelligent person. Groups were perusing it
during the day. A force of police marched through the village and
back, but did not observe this document, as it is still posted on
the door of the house."

The "bloodthirsty perjurers" here mentioned were the daughters who had dared to demand and to promote the punishment of the assassins of their father! For this crime these daughters were to be excommunicated by the people of Firies, and denied the consolations of religion in their deep sorrow, even in defiance of the order of the Catholic bishop.

As the advent of Mr. Gladstone to power in alliance with Mr. Parnell was then imminent, Mr. Sheehan, M.P., wrote a letter to the parish priest of Firies, the Rev. Mr. O'Connor, begging him in substance to put the brakes--for a time--upon the wheels of the local rack, lest the outcries of the young women subjected to this moral torture should interfere with the success of the new alliance. This, in plain English, is the only possible meaning of the letter which I here reprint from a leaflet issued by an Irish society:--

"The Rev. Father O'Connor, P.P., has received the following letter
from Mr. Sheehau, M.P., in reference to this matter, under date

"'House of Commons, _January 26th._

"'REV. DEAR SIR,--At this important juncture in our history, I am
sorry to see reports of the Firies display. Nothing that has taken
place yet in the South of Ireland has done so much harm to the
National cause. If they persist they will ruin us. To-morrow
evening will be most important in Parliamentary history. Our party
expect the defeat of the Government and resumption of power by Mr.
Gladstone. If we succeed in this, which we are confident of, the
future of our country will be great, and, although an appeal to the
constituencies must be made, the Irish party in those few days have
made an impression in future that no Government can withstand. The
Salisbury Government want to appeal to the country on the integrity
of the empire, and, of course, for the last few days have tried all
means to lead to this by raking up the Curtin case and all judicial
cases, which _must be avoided for a short time_, as our stoppage to
the Eviction Act will cover all this.--Yours faithfully, J.D.
SHEEHAN.'"

This letter was read, the leaflet informs us, by the Rev. Mr. O'Connor, at the National Schools and other places.

NOTE G.

THE PONSONBY PROPERTY.

(Vol. ii. pp. 59-66.)

The account which the Rev. Canon Keller gave me of "The Struggle for Life on the Ponsonby Estate," in a tract bearing that title, and authorised by him to be published by the National League, is so circumstantial and elaborate that, after reading it carefully, I took unusual pains to obtain some reply to it from the representatives of the landlord implicated. These finally led to a visit from Mr. Ponsonby himself, who was so kind as to call upon me in London on the 15th of May, with papers and documents. I give in the following colloquy the results of this interview, putting together with the allegations of Canon Keller the answers of Mr. Ponsonby, and leave the matter in this form to the judgment of my readers.

_Q_. Canon Keller, I see, describes you, Mr. Ponsonby, as "a retired navy officer, and an absentee Irish landlord." He says your estate is now "universally known as the famous Ponsonby Estate," and that it is occupied "by from 300 to 400 tenants, holding farms varying in extent from an acre and a half to over two hundred acres." Are these statements correct?

_A_. I am a retired navy officer certainly, and perhaps I may be called an "absentee Irish landlord." I lived on my property for some time, and I have always attended to it. I succeeded to the estate in 1868, and almost my first act was to borrow £2000 of the Board of Works for drainage purposes--the tenants agreeing to pay half the interest. As a matter of fact some never paid at all, and I afterwards wiped out the claims against them. There are about 300 tenants on the property, and the average holdings are of about 36 acres, at an average rental of £30 a holding. There are, however, not a few large farms.

_Q_. Canon Keller says that "in the memory of living witnesses, and far beyond it, the Ponsonby tenants have been notoriously rack-rented and oppressed"; and that they have been committed to the "tender mercies of agents, seeing little or nothing of their landlord, and experiencing no practical sympathy from that quarter." How is this?

_A_. I wish to believe Canon Keller truthful when he knows the truth. He certainly does not know the truth here. He is a newcomer at Youghal, having come there in November 1885, and hardly so much of an authority about "the memory of living witnesses and far beyond it" as the tenants on the estate, who, when I went there first with my wife, presented to me, May 25, 1868, an address of welcome, referring in very different terms to the history of the estate and of my family connection with it. Here is the original address, and a copy of it--the latter being quite at your service.

This original address is very handsomely engrossed, and is signed by fifty tenants. Among the names I observed those of Martin Loughlin, Peter McDonough, Michael Gould, William Forrest, and John Heaphey, all of whom are cited by Canon Keller in his tract as conspicuous victims of the oppression and rack-renting which he says have prevailed upon the Ponsonby estates time out of mind. It was rather surprising, therefore, to find them joining with more than forty other tenants to sign an address, of which I here print the text:--

To C.W. TALBOT PONSONBY, Esq.

Honoured Sir,--The Tenantry of your Estates near Youghal have heard
with extreme pleasure of the arrival of yourself and lady in the
neighbourhood, and have deputed us to address you on their behalf.

Through us they bid you and Mrs. Ponsonby welcome, and respectfully
congratulate you on your accession to the Estates.

The name of Ponsonby is traditionally revered in this part of the
country, being associated in the recollections and impressions of
the people with all that is exalted, honourable, and generous. It
has been matter of regret that the heads of the family have not
(probably from uncontrollable causes) visited these Estates for
many years, but the tenantry have never wavered in their sentiments
of respect towards them.

We will not disguise from you the conviction generally entertained
that the improvement of landed property, and the condition of its
occupiers, is best promoted under the personal observation and
supervision of the proprietor, and your tenantry on that account
hail with satisfaction the promise your presence affords of future
intercourse between you and them.

Again, on the part of your Tenants and all connected with your
Estates, tendering you and your lady a most hearty welcome, and
sincerely wishing you and her a long and happy career--We subscribe
ourselves, Honoured Sir, Respectfully yours,

YOUGHAL, _May_ 1868.

_Q_. Did Canon Keller ever see this address, may I ask, Mr. Ponsonby?

_A_. I believe not; and I may as well say at once that I suppose he has taken for gospel all the stories which any of the tenants under the terrorism which has been established on the place think it best to pour into his listening ear. As I have said, he is quite a new man at Youghal, and when he first came there he was a quiet and not at all revolutionary priest. You saw him, and saw how good his manners are, and that he is a well-educated man. But on Sunday, November 7, 1886, a great meeting was held at Youghal. It was a queer meeting for a Sunday, being openly a political meeting, with banners and bands, to hear speeches from Mr. Lane, M.P., Mr. Flynn, M.P., and others. The Rev. Mr. Keller presided, and a priest from America, Father Hayes of Georgetown, Iowa, in the United States, was present. It was ostensibly a Home Rule meeting, but the burden of the speeches was agrarian. Mr. Lane, M.P., made a bitter personal attack on another Nationalist member, Sir Joseph M'Kenna of Killeagh, calling him a "heartless and inhuman landlord;" and my property was also attended to by Mr. Lane, who advised my tenants openly not to accept my offer of 20 per cent. reduction, but to demand 40 per cent. Father Hayes in his speech bade "every man stand to his guns," and wound up by declaring that if England and the landlords behaved in America as they behaved in Ireland, the Americans "would pelt them not only with dynamite, but with the lightnings of Heaven and the fires of hell, till every British bull-dog, whelp, and cur would be pulverised and made top-dressing for the soil." Canon Keller afterwards expressed disapproval of this speech of Hayes, and this coming to the knowledge of Hayes in America, Hayes denounced Keller for not daring to do this at the time in his presence. Since then Canon Keller has been much more violent in tone.

_Q_. I don't want to carry you through a long examination, Mr. Ponsonby, but I see typical cases here, about which I should like to ask a question or two. Here, is Callaghan Flavin, for instance, described by Canon Keller as one of eight tenants who "had to retreat before the crowbar brigade," and who "deserved a better fate." Canon Keller says he is assured by a competent judge that Flavin's improvements, "full value for £341, 10s.," are now "the landlord's property." What are the facts about Mr. Flavin?

_A_. Mr. Flavin's farm was held by his cousin, Ellen Flavin of Gilmore, who, on the 7th of February 1872, surrendered it to the landlord on receiving from me a sum of £172, 10s. 6d. I obtained a charging order under section 27 of the Land Act, entitling me to an annuity of £8, 12s. 6d. for thirty-five years from July 3, 1872. It was let to Callaghan Flavin in preference to other applicants, July 3, 1872; and in 1873, at his request, I obtained a loan from the Board of Works for the thorough draining of a portion of the farm. Thirteen acres were drained at a cost of £84, 6s. 3d., for which the tenant promised to pay 5 per cent. interest, which I eventually forgave him. There was no house on the farm. He took it without one, and I did not want one there. He built a house himself without consulting my agent, and then wanted me to make him an allowance for it. I told him he had thirty-one years to enjoy it in, and must be content with that. About the same time he took another farm of mine at a rent of £35. Since I came into my property in 1868 I have laid out upon it in drainage, buildings, and planting--here are the accounts, which you may look at--over £15,000, including about £8000 of loans from the Board of Works. In the drainage the tenants got work for which they were paid. I gave them slates for the buildings, with timber and stone from the estate, and they supplied the labour. There is no case in which the outlays for improvements came from the tenants--not a single one. I repeat it, Canon Keller's tract is a tissue of fictions.

What nonsense it is to talk about the "traditional rack-renting" of a property held by the Ponsonbys for two hundred years, the tenants on which could welcome me when I came into it with the language of the address you have here seen!

I never evicted tenants for less than three years' arrears, till what Canon Keller calls the "crowbar brigade," by which he means the officers of the law, had to be put into action to meet the "Plan of Campaign" in May last. I did not proceed against the tenants because they could not pay. I selected the tenants who could pay, and who were led, or, I believe in most cases, "coerced," into refusing to pay by agitators with Mr. Lane, M.P., to inspire them, and Canon Keller, P.P., to glorify them in a tract.

_Q_. What were your personal relations with the tenants when you were at Inchiquin?

_A_. Always most friendly; and even the other day when I was there, while none of them would speak to me when they were all together, those I met individually touched their hats, and were as civil as ever. I believe they would all be thankful to have things as they were, and I have never refused to meet and treat with them on fair individual terms.

In November 1885 my offer of an abatement of 15 per cent. being refused, a few tenants, I believe, clubbed their rents, and for the sake of peace I then offered 20 per cent., which they accepted and paid. In October 1886 I hoped to prevent trouble by making the same offer of 20 per cent. abatement on non-judicial and 10 per cent. on judicial rents. One man took the latter abatement and paid. Then another tenant demanded 40 per cent. My agent said he would give them time, and also take money on account, the effect of which would be to put me out of court, and prevent my getting an order of ejectment if I wanted to for the balance. I thought this fair, and approved it, but I refused to make a 40 per cent. all-round abatement, authorising my agent, however, to make what abatements he liked in special cases. My words were, "I don't limit you on the amount of abatement you give, or as to the number of tenants you may choose so to treat." If this was not a fair free hand, what would be? My agent afterwards told me he had no chance to make this known. The fact is they meant to force the Plan on the tenants and me, and to prevent any settlement but a "victory for the League!"

In my original notes of my conversation with Father Keller at Youghal, I found the name of one tenant whom he introduced to me, and who certainly told me that his holdings amounted to some £300 a year, and that they had been in his family for "two hundred years," set down as Doyle--I so printed it with the statements made. But Father Keller, to whom I submitted my proofs, and who was so good as to revise them, struck out the name of Doyle, and inserted that of Loughlin, putting the rental down at £94 (vol. ii. p. 71). Of course I accept this correction. But on my mentioning the matter to Mr. Ponsonby by letter, he replies to me (July 27th) as follows:--

"Maurice Doyle is a son of Richard Doyle, who died in 1876, leaving
his widow to carry on his farm of 74 acres 1 rood, in the townland
of Ballykitty, which he held in 1858 at a rental of £50, 11s. In
1868 this was reduced to £48, 11s. In September 1871 he took in
addition a farm of 159 acres 2 roods at £130, in Burgen and
Ballykitty. He afterwards got a lease for thirty-one years of this
larger farm, with a portion of his earlier holding, for £155. This
left him to pay £21, 11s. for the residue of the earlier holding as
in 1858. But at his request, in 1876, the year of his death, I
reduced this to £17.

"In March 1879, by the death of Mr. Henry Hall, in whose family it
had been for certainly a century, the Inchiquin farm of 213 acres,
valued at £258, 10s., came on my hands. This farm was valued in
1873 by one valuer at £384, 10s., and by another at £390, 10s. In
an old lease I find that this farm was let at £3 an acre. Mr. Henry
Hall to the day of his death held it at £306, 7s. 6d., under a
lease which I made a lease for life. For this farm Mrs. Richard
Doyle applied, agreeing to take it on a 31 years' lease, at £370 a
year. I let it to her, and she became the lease-holder, putting in
her son Maurice Doyle to take charge of it, though not as the
tenant. He was an active Land Leaguer from the moment he got into
the place, and in 1886 he was a leader in promoting the Plan of
Campaign. Proceedings had to be taken against his mother in order
to eject him, as she was the tenant, not he. I objected to this,
for I always have had the greatest regard for her. Had she been let
alone she would have paid her rent as she had always done. But Mr.
Lane and his allies saw it would never do to let Maurice Doyle
retain his place on his mother's holding. All this will show you
that Maurice Doyle did not inherit the Inchiquin farm. The only
inherited holding of his mother is the farm of 74 acres 1 rood in
the townland of Ballykitty, held by his father in 1858. I have no
doubt you saw Doyle at Youghal, by the description you gave me, and
you remembered his name at once. He was a thickset heavy-looking
man, florid, with a military moustache, the last time I saw him.
His mother is one of the 'rack-rented' tenants you hear of, having
been able in ten years to increase her acreage from 74 acres to 376
acres, and her rental from £48, 11s. to £542!"

As to the general effect of all this business upon the tenants, and upon himself, Mr. Ponsonby spoke most feelingly. "The tenants are ruined where they might have been thriving. My means of being useful to them or to myself are taken away. My charges, though, all remain. I have to pay tithes for Protestant Church service, of which I can't have the benefit, the churches being closed; and the other day I had a notice that any property I had in England would be held liable for quit-rents to the Crown on my property in Ireland, of which the Government denies me practically any control or use!"

NOTE G2.

THE GLENBEHY EVICTION FUND.

(Vol. ii. p. 12.)

In the _London Times_ of September 15 appears the following letter from the Land Agent whom I saw at Glenbehy, setting forth the effect of this "Glenbehy Eviction Fund" upon the morals of the tenants and the peace of the place:--

_To the Editor of the Times._

"Sir,--Although nearly eighteen months have elapsed since the
evictions on the Glenbehy estate, after which the above-named fund
was started and largely subscribed to by the sympathetic British
public, I think it only fair to throw a little light on the manner
in which this fund has been expended, and the effects which are
still felt in consequence of the money not yet being exhausted.

"It was generally supposed that the tenants then evicted were in
such poor circumstances as to be unable to settle, whereas, as a
matter of fact, they were, and are, with a few exceptions, the most
well-to-do on the estate, having, for the most part, from five to
fifteen head of cattle, in addition to sheep, pigs, etc.

"Among the tenants evicted at that time many had not paid rents
since 1879, and had been in illegal occupation since 1884, from
which latter date the landlord was responsible for taxes, provided
it is proved that sufficient distress cannot be made of the lands.
These tenants were offered a clear receipt to May 1, 1886, if they
paid half a year's rent, which would scarcely have paid the cost of
proceedings, and the landlord would therefore have been put to
actual loss. These people, though well able to settle, are given to
understand that as soon as they do so their participation in the
eviction fund will cease, and thus it will be seen that a direct
premium is being paid to dishonesty.

"In one case a widow woman was summoned for being on the farm from
which she was at that time evicted. Finding out that one of her
children was ill, I applied to the magistrate at the hearing of the
case only to impose a nominal fine. In consequence she was fined
one penny, but sooner than pay this she went to gaol, though she
had several head of cattle and, prior to her eviction, a very nice
farm. The case of this woman fairly illustrates the combination
which has existed to avoid the fulfilment of obligations.

"The amount of fines paid for similar offences comes, in several
instances, to nearly what I require to effect a settlement. Some of
the tenants actually wrote to the late agent on this estate begging
him to evict them in order that they might come in for a share of
the money raised for the relief of distress, and this clearly shows
beyond dispute that the well-meaning subscribers to the fund will
be more or less responsible for any further evictions to which it
may be necessary to resort. I may mention that the parish priest is
one of the trustees for the money which is thus being used for the
purpose of preventing settlements and keeping the place in a
continual state of turmoil.

"Judge Currane, at the January sessions held at Killarney this
year, ruled in about fifty ejectment cases on this estate that
tenants owing one and a half to nine years' rent should pay half a
year's rent and costs within a week, a quarter of a year's rent by
June 1, and a quarter of a year's rent by October 1; arrears to be
cancelled. Some of these, owing to non-compliance with the Judge's
ruling, may have to be evicted, and their eviction will be what is
termed the unrooting of peasants' houses and the ejectment of
overburdened tenants for not paying impossible rents.

"I confess I am at a loss to understand how Mr. Parnell's Arrears
Act would have improved matters or have averted what one of your
contemporaries calls a "painful scandal."--I am, Sirs, yours, &c.,

"D. TODD-THORNTON, J.P., Land Agent.

"Glenbehy, Killarney."

NOTE G.

HOME RULE AND PROTESTANTISM.

(Vol. ii. p. 68.)

I fear that all the "Nationalist" clergy in Ireland are not as careful as Father Keller to avoid giving occasion for this impression that Irish autonomy would be followed by a persecution of the Protestants. But a little more than three years ago, for example, the following circular was issued by the Bishop of Ossory, and affixed to the door of the churches in his diocese. Who can wonder that it should have been regarded by Protestants in that diocese as a direct stirring up of bitter religious animosities against them? Or that, emanating directly as it did from a bishop of the Church, it should be represented as emanating indirectly from the Head of the Church himself at Rome?

"_Kilkenny, April 16th, 1885._

"REV. DEAR SIR,--May I ask you to read the following circular for
the people at each of the Masses on Sunday, 19th April?

"The course to be adopted for the future by the Priest of the Parish
to whom notice of a Mixed Marriage is given by the Minister, or the
Registrar, is as follows:--he makes the following entry on the book
of Parochial announcements, and reads it three consecutive Sundays
from the Altar:--

"'The Priests of the Parish have received the following notice of a
marriage to be celebrated between a Catholic and a Protestant. [Here
read Registrar's notice in full.] We have now to inform you that the
law of the Catholic Church regarding such marriages is: that the
Catholic party contracting marriage before a Registrar or other
unauthorised person is, by the very fact of so doing,
Excommunicated; and the witnesses to such marriage are also
Excommunicated.'

"I should be very much obliged if, as occasion may require, you
would explain the effects of this Excommunication from the Altar.

"You will please take notice that the Registrar or Minister is bound
legally to send the notice of marriage referred to above, and also,
that in reading it out _in the form, and with the accompanying
remarks above_, you incur no legal penalty.

"I feel sure that with your accustomed zeal you will do everything
in your power to prevent abuses in regard to the Sacrament of
Matrimony, which is great in Christ and the Church, and to induce
the faithful to prepare for receiving it by Prayer, by works of
Charity, and by approaching the Sacrament of Penance to purify their
souls.--Yours faithfully in Christ,

[Image: Cross] A. BROWNRIGG."

"MY DEAR BRETHREN,--We have been very much pained to learn, within
the past month, that marriages between Catholics and non-Catholics
have increased very much in this city of Kilkenny. Many
_evil-disposed_ persons, utterly unmindful of the prohibitions of
the Church, and regardless of the dreadful consequences they bring
on themselves, have not hesitated to enter into those _unholy
matrimonial alliances_ called "Mixed Marriages," which the Catholic
Church has always _hated and detested_. Those misguided Catholics,
who do not deserve the name, have not blushed to go, in some
instances, before the Protestant Minister, in other instances,
before the Public Registrar, to ask them to assist at their marriage
with a Protestant. By contracting marriage in this way, they run a
great risk of bringing on themselves and on their children, should
they have any, the _maledictions_ of Heaven instead of the blessings
of religion. In order to put a stop to this growing abuse, and to
prevent it from spreading like a contagion to other parts of the
Diocese, we beg to remind the faithful of certain regulations which,
for the future, shall have force in the Diocese of Ossory in
reference to the Catholics, who so far forget themselves as to
contract such marriages.

"1. In the first place, any one who contracts a "Mixed Marriage"
without a dispensation from the Holy See and before a Protestant
Minister or a Registrar is, by the very fact, guilty of a most
grievous mortal sin by violating a solemn law of the Church in a
most grave matter.

"2. The Catholic who assists as witness at such marriage also
commits a most grievous sin by co-operating in an unlawful act.

"3. Both the Catholic party contracting the marriage and the
Catholic witnesses to it cannot be absolved by any priest in the
Diocese of Ossory, unless by the Bishop or by those to whom he
grants special faculties.

"4. In order more effectually to deter people from entering into
_those detestable marriages_, the penalty of _Excommunication_
is hereby attached to that sin both for the Catholic _contracting_
party as also for the Catholic _witnesses_ to such marriage.

"5. The notice which the Protestant Rector or the Registrar is
legally bound in such cases to send to the Parish Priest of the
Catholic party, will be read from the Altar for three consecutive
Sundays, and thus the _crime_ of the offending party brought out
into open light before his or her fellow-parishioners.

"6. For the rest, we hope the sense of decency and religion of the
Catholic people and their Pastors shall be no more hurt by any
Catholic entering into those marriages, so full of, misery and evil
of every kind for themselves, their children, and society at
large.--Yours faithfully in Christ,

[Image: Cross] ABRAHAM, Bishop of Ossory.

NOTE H.

TULLY AND THE WOODFORD EVICTIONS.

(Vol. ii. p. 149.)

Since the first edition of this book was published certain "evictions" mentioned in it as impending on the Clanricarde estates have been carried out. I have no reason to suppose that there was more or less reason for carrying out these evictions than there usually is, not in Ireland only, but all over the civilised world, for a resort by the legal owners of property to legal means of recovering the possession of it from persons who fail to comply with the terms on which it was put into their keeping. Whether this failure results from dishonesty or from misfortune is a consideration not often allowed, I think, to affect the right of the legal owner of the property concerned to his legal remedy in any other country but Ireland, nor even in Ireland in the case of any property other than property in land. But as what I learned on the spot touching the general condition of the Clanricarde tenants, and touching the conduct and character of Lord Clanricarde's agent, Mr. Tener, led me to take a special interest in these evictions, I asked him to send me some account of them. In reply he gave me a number of interesting details.

The only serious attempt at resisting the execution of the law was made by "Dr." Tully, one of the leading local "agitators," to the tendency of whose harangues judicial reference was made during the investigation into the case of Mr. Wilfrid Blunt. Tully had a holding of seventeen acres at a rent of £2, 10s., the Government valuation being £4. He earned a good livelihood as a boat-builder, and he had put up a slated house on his holding. But in November 1884 he chose to stop paying the very low rent at which he held his place, and he has paid no rent since that time. As is stated in a footnote on page 153, vol. ii. of this book, a decree was granted against Tully by Judge Henn for three years' rent due in May 1887, and his equity of redemption having expired July 9, 1888, this recourse was had to the law against him.

As the leading spirit of the agitation, Tully had put a garrison into his house of twelve men and two women. He had dug a ditch around it, taken out the window-sashes, filled up the casements and the doorways with stones and trunks of trees. Portholes had been pierced under the roof, through which the defenders might thrust red-hot pikes, pitchforks, and other weapons, and empty pails of boiling water upon the assailants. A brief parley took place. Tully refused to make any offer of a settlement unless the agent would agree to reinstate all the evicted tenants, to which Mr. Tener replied that he would recognise no "combination," but was ready to deal with every tenant fairly and individually. Finally the Sheriff ordered his men to take the place. Ladders were planted, and while some of the constables, under the protection of a shield covered with zinc, a sort of Roman _testudo_, worked at removing the earthern ramparts, others nimbly climbed to the roof and began to break in from above. In their excitement the garrison helped this forward by breaking holes through the roof themselves to get at the attacking party, and in about twenty minutes the fortress was captured, and the inmates were prisoners. Two constables were burned by the red-hot pikes, the gun of another was broken to pieces by a huge stone, and a fourth was slightly wounded by a fork. One of the defenders got a sword-cut; and Tully was brought forth as one too severely wounded to walk. Upon investigation, however, the surgeon refused to certify that he was unable to undergo the ordinary imprisonment in such cases made and provided.

The collapse of the resistance at this central point was followed by a general surrender.

After the capture of Tully's house, Mr. Tener writes to me, "I found it being gutted by his family, who would have carried it away piecemeal. They had already taken away the flooring of one of the rooms." Thereupon Mr. Tener had the house pulled down, with the result of seeing a statement made in a leading Nationalist paper that he was "evicting the tenants and pulling down their houses."

"Yesterday," Mr. Tener writes to me on the 9th of September, "I walked twenty-five miles, visiting thirty farms about Portumna. Except in two or three cases, the tenants have ample means, and part of the live stock alone on the farms, exclusive of the crops, would suffice to pay all the rents I had demanded. On the farms recently 'evicted,' I found treble the amount of the rent due in live stock alone."

As to one case of these recent evictions, I found it stated in an Irish journal that a young man, who had been ill of consumption for two years, the son of a tenant, was removed from the house, the local physician refusing to certify that he was unfit for removal, and that he died a few days afterwards. The implication was obvious, and I asked Mr. Tener for the facts.

He replied, "This young man, John Fahey, was in consumption, but did not appear to be in any danger. Dr. Carte, an Army surgeon, examined him, and said there was no immediate danger. The day was fine and he walked about wrapped in a comfortable coat, and talked with me and others. His father, a respectable man, made no attempt to defend his house; and at his request, after the crowd had gone away, my man in charge permitted the invalid and the family to reoccupy the house temporarily because of his illness. There was no inquest, and no need of any, after his death. His father, Patrick Fahey, had means to pay, but told me he 'could not,' which meant he 'dared not.' I went to him personally twice, and sent him many messages. But the terror of the League was upon the poor man.

"An interesting case is that of Michael Fahey, of Dooras. In 1883 his rent was judicially reduced about 5 per cent., from £33 to £31, 5s. His house and all about it is substantial and comfortable. His father, about thirty years ago, fought for a whole night and bravely beat off a party of 'Terry-Alts,' the 'Moonlighters' of that day. For his courage the Government presented him with a gun, of which the son is very proud. Pity he did not inherit the pluck with the gun of his parent!

"I had been privately told that this tenant would pay; but that he would first produce a doctor's certificate that his old mother could not be moved. He did give the Sheriff a carefully worded document to show this, but it was so vague that I objected to its being received by the Sheriff. Upon this (not before! mark the craft of even a well-disposed Irish tenant in those evil days), I was asked to go into the house. I went in and entered the parlour. There the tenant told me he would pay the year's rent and the costs, amounting to £50. He had risen from his seat to fetch the money, when, lo! Father Egan (the priest upon whose head the widow of the murdered Finlay called down the curse of God in the open street of Woodford) appeared in the doorway. He had come in on a pretence of seeing the old mother of the tenant, who had (for that occasion) taken to her bed. The bedroom lay beyond the parlour, and was entered from it. The tenant actually shook with fear as Father Egan passed through, and I thought all hope of a settlement gone, when suddenly the officer of the police came in, passed into the bedroom, and told Father Egan he must withdraw. This Father Egan refused to do, whereupon the officer said very quietly, 'I shall remove you forthwith if you do not go out quietly.' Upon this Father Egan hastily left. The tenant then went into the bedroom and soon reappeared with the £50 in bank-notes, which he paid me. All this was dramatic enough. But the comedy was next performed in front of the house, where all could see it, of handing to the Sheriff the alleged doctor's certificate, and of my saying aloud that 'in the circumstances' I had no objection to his receiving it! After this all the forces proceeded to take their luncheon on the green bank sloping down to the Shannon in front of the farm-house. There is a fine orchard on the place, and it recalled to me some of the farms I saw in Virginia.

"I had gone into the house again, and was standing near the fire in the kitchen, where some of my escort were taking their luncheon. It is a large kitchen, and perhaps a dozen people were in it, when in came Father Egan again and called to the tenant Fahey, 'Put out those policemen, and do not suffer one of them to remain.'

"The sergeant instantly said, 'We are here on duty, Father Egan, and if you dare to try to intimidate this tenant, I shall either put you out or arrest you.'

"'Yes,' I interposed, looking at the sergeant, 'you are certainly here on duty, and in the name of the law, and it is sad to see a clergyman here in the interest of an illegal, criminal, and rebellious movement, and of the immoral Plan of Campaign.'

"'Oh!' exclaimed Father Egan, 'the opinion of the agent of the Marquis of Clanricarde is valuable, truly!'

"'I give you,' I said, 'not my opinion, but the opinion of Dr. Healy and Dr. O'Dwyer, bishops of your Church, and men worthy of all respect and reverence. And I am sorry to know that some ecclesiastics deserve no respect, but that at their doors lies the main responsibility for the misery and the crime which afflict our unhappy country. I feel sure a just God will punish them in due time.'

"Father Egan made no reply, but paused a moment, and then walked out of the house.

"At the next house, that of Dennis Fahey, we found a still better dwelling. Here we had another mock certificate, but we received the rent with the costs."

NOTE H2.

BOYCOTTING THE DEAD.

(Vol. ii. p. 151.)

The following official account sent to me (July 24) of an affair in Donegal, the result of the gospel of "Boycotting" taught in that region, needs and will bear no comment.

Patrick Cavanagh came to reside at Clonmany, County Donegal, about two months ago, as caretaker on some evicted farms. He died on Wednesday evening, June 20th, having received the full rites of the Roman Catholic Church. The people had displayed no ill-will towards him during his brief residence at Clonmany, and on the evening of his death his body was washed and laid out by some women. On Thursday two townsmen dug his grave, where pointed out by Father Doherty, P.P.

The first symptom of change of feeling was that on Thursday every carpenter applied to had some excuse for not making a coffin for the body of deceased. On Friday morning the grave was found to be filled with stones, and a deputation waited on Father Doherty to protest against Cavanagh's burial in the chapel graveyard. He told them to go home and mind their business. About 10.30 A.M. on Friday the chapel bell was rung--not tolled or rung as for service, but faster. The local sergeant of police went to the cemetery; when he arrived there the tolling ceased. He then went to Father Doherty, who told those present that their conduct was such as to render them unfit for residence anywhere but in a savage country. He told them to go to their homes, and advised them to allow the corpse to be buried in the grave he had marked out. After Father Doherty had left, the people condemned his interference, and said they would not allow any stranger to be buried in the graveyard. When Constable Brady put it to those present that their real objection did not lie in the fact that Cavanagh had been a stranger, he was not contradicted.

The body was ultimately buried at Carndonagh on Saturday, several people remaining in the graveyard at Clonmany all through the night (Friday) till the body was taken to Carndonagh for burial.

At Carndonagh Petty Sessions, on the 18th July 1888, Con. Doherty and Owen Doherty, with five others, were prosecuted for unlawful assembly on the occasion above referred to. The first two named, who were the ringleaders, were convicted, and sentenced to six weeks' imprisonment each with hard labour; the charges against the remainder were dismissed.

NOTE I.

POST-OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS.

(Vol. i. p. 117; vol. ii. pp. 5, 12, 66, 95, 200, 248.)

As the Post-Office Savings Banks represent the smaller depositors, and command special confidence among them even in the disturbed districts, I print here an official statement showing the balances due to depositors in the undermentioned offices, situated in certain of the most disturbed regions I visited, on the 31st December of the years 1880 and 1887 respectively:--

+-----------------+-----------------+---------------+
| OFFICE. | 1880. | 1887. |
+-----------------+-----------------+---------------+
| | £ s. d. | £ s. d. |
| Bunbeg, | 1,270 6 7 | 1,206 18 2 |
| Falcarragh, | 62 15 10 | 494 10 8 |
| Gorey, | 3,690 14 4 | 5,099 5 7 |
| Inch, |[A] 8 11 0 | 209 7 5 |
| Killorglin, | 282 15 9 | 1,299 2 6 |
| Loughrea, | 5,500 19 9 | 6,311 4 11 |
| Mitchelstown, | 1,387 13 2 | 2,846 9 3 |
| Portumna, | 2,539 10 11 | 3,376 5 4 |
| Sixmilebridge, | 382 17 10 | 934 13 4 |
| Stradbally, | 1,812 14 8 | 2,178 18 2 |
| Woodford, | 259 14 6 | 1,350 17 11 |
| Youghal, | 3,031 0 7 | 7,038 7 2 |
+-----------------+-----------------+---------------+
[A] This Office was not opened for Savings Bank
business until the year 1881, the amount shown
being balance due on the 31st December 1882.

It appears from this table that the deposits in these Savings Banks increased in the aggregate from £20,329, 15s. 11d. in 1880 to £32,347, 9s. 7d. in 1887, or almost 60 per cent, in seven years. They fell off in only one case, at Bunbeg, and there only to a nominal amount. At Youghal they much more than doubled, increasing about 133 per cent. Yet in all these places the Plan of Campaign has been invoked "because the people were penniless and could not pay their debts!"

NOTE K.

THE COOLGREANY EVICTIONS.

(Vol. ii. p. 216.)

Captain Hamilton sends me the following graphic account of this affair at Coolgreany:--

In the _Freeman's Journal_ of the 16th December 1886, it is reported that a meeting of the Brooke tenantry, the Rev. P. O'Neill in the chair, was held at Coolgreany on the Sunday previous to the 15th December 1886, the date on which the "Plan of Campaign" was adopted on the estate, at which it was resolved that if I refused the terms offered they would join the "Plan."

I had no conference at Freeman's house or anywhere else at any time with two parish priests. On the 15th December 1886, when seated in Freeman's house waiting to receive the rents, four priests, a reporter of the _Freeman's Journal_, some local reporters, and four of the tenants rushed into the room; and the priests in the rudest possible manner (the Rev. P. Farrelly, one of them, calling me "Francy Hyne's hangman," and other terms of abuse) informed me that unless I re-instated a former Roman Catholic tenant in a farm which he had previously held, and which was then let to a Protestant, and gave an abatement of 30 per cent., no rent would be paid _me_ that day. Dr. Dillon, C.C., was not present on this occasion, or, if so, I do not remember seeing him.

On my asking if I had no alternative but to concede to their demand, the Rev. Mr. Dunphy, parish priest, replied, "None other; do not think, sir, we have come here to-day to do honour to you."

The Rev. P. O'Neill spoke as he always does, in a more gentlemanly and conciliatory manner, and I therefore, as the confusion in the room was great, offered to discuss the matter with him, the Rev. O'Donel, C.C., and the tenants, if the other priests, who were strangers to me, and the reporters would leave the room. This the Rev. Mr. Dunphy declared they would not do, and I accordingly refused further to discuss the matter.

After they left the house, one of the tenants, Mick Darcy, stepped forward and said, "Settle with us, Captain." I replied, "Certainly, if you come back with me into the house." The Rev. Mr. Dunphy took him by the collar of his coat and threw him against the wall of the house, then turning to me with his hand raised said, "You shall not do so; we, who claim the temporal as well as spiritual power over _you_ as well as these poor creatures, will settle this matter with you."

The tenants were then taken down to the League rooms, where two M.P.s, Sir Thomas Esmonde and Mr. Mayne, were waiting to receive the rents, which, one by one, they were ordered in to pay into the war-chest of the "Plan of Campaign."

I have I fear written too much of this commencement of the war on the estate which has since led to over seventy of the tenants and their families being ejected, and has brought ruin on nearly all who joined it. I have considerable experience as a land agent, but I know of no estate where the tenants were more respectable, better housed, or, as a body, in better circumstances than on the Brooke estate. They had a kind, indulgent landlord, and they knew it; and nothing but the belief that, led by their clergy, they were foremost in a battle fighting for their country and religion, would have induced them to put up with the great hardships and loss they have undoubtedly had to suffer.

NOTE L.

A DUCAL SUPPER IN IRELAND IN 1711.

(Vol. ii. p. 283.)

The following entry I take from the Expense-Book of the Duke of Ormond, under date of August 23, 1711:--

His Grace came to Kilkenny, half an hour after 10 at night.

HIS GRACE'S TABLE.

Pottage. Sautee Veal. 5 Pullets, Bacon and Collyflowers. Pottage Meagre. Pikes with White Sauce. A Turbot with Lobster Sauce. Umbles. A Hare Hasht. Buttered Chickens, G. Hasht Veal and New Laid Eggs. Removes. A Shoulder and Neck of Mutton. Haunch of Venison.

_Second Course._

Lobsters. Tarts, an Oval Dish. Crabbs Buttered. 4 Pheasants, 4 Partridges, 4 Turkeys. Ragoo Mushrooms. Kidney Beans. Ragoo Oysters. Fritters. Two Sallets.

NOTE M.

LETTER FROM MR. O'LEARY.

(Vol. ii. p. 291.)

In the first edition of this book I credited Mr. O'Leary with making this pungent remark about figs and grapes, because I found it jotted down in my original memoranda as coming from him. In a private note he assures me that he does not think it was made by him, and though this does not agree with my own recollection, I defer, of course, to his impression. And this I do the more readily that it affords me an opportunity for printing the following very characteristic and interesting letter sent to me by him for publication should I think fit to use it.

As the most important support given by the Irish in America to the Nationalists is solicited by their agents on the express ground that they are really labouring to establish an Irish Republic, this outspoken declaration of Mr. O'Leary, that he does not believe they "expect or desire" the establishment of an Irish Republic, will be of interest on my side of the water:--

"DUBLIN, _Sept._ 9, '88.

"My Dear Sir,--I am giving more bother about what you make me say
in your book than the thing is probably worth, especially seeing
that what you say about me and my present attitude towards men and
things here is almost entirely correct.

"It is proverbially hard to prove a negative, and my main reason
for believing I did not say the thing about figs and grapes is that
I never could remember the whole of any proverb in conversation;
but I am absolutely certain I never said that 'some of them (the
National Leaguers) expect to found an Irish republic on robbery,
and to administer it by falsehood. We don't.' Most certainly I do
not expect to found anything on robbery, or administer anything by
falsehood, but I do not in the least believe that the National
League either expects or desires to found an Irish republic at all!
Neither do I believe that the Leaguers will long retain the
administration of such small measure of Home Rule, as I now (since
the late utterances of Mr. Parnell and Mr. Gladstone) believe we
are going to get. My fault with the present people is not that they
are looking, or mean to look, for too much, but that they may be
induced, by pressure from their English Radical allies, to be
content with too little. It is only a large and liberal measure of
Home Rule which will ever satisfy the Irish people, and I fear
that, if the smaller fry of Radical M.P.'s are allowed to have a
strong voice in a matter of which they know next to nothing, the
settlement of the Irish question will be indefinitely postponed.--I
remain, faithfully yours,

"JOHN O'LEARY."

NOTE N

BOYCOTTING PRIVATE OPINION.

(Vol. ii. p. 293.)

This case of Mr. Taylor is worth preserving _in extenso_ as an illustration of that spirit in the Irish journalism of the day, against which Mr. Rolleston and his friends protest as fatal to independence, manliness, and truth. I simply cite the original attack made upon Mr. Taylor, the replies made by himself and his friends, and the comments made upon those replies by the journal which assailed him. They all tell their own story.

(_UNITED IRELAND_, JUNE 16.)

Mr. John F. Taylor owes everything he has or is to the Irish
National Party; nor is he slow to confess it where the
acknowledgment will serve his personal interests. His sneers are
all anonymous, and, like Mr. Fagg, the grateful and deferential
valet in _The Rivals_, "it hurts his conscience to be found out."
There is no honesty or sincerity in the man. His covert gibes are
the spiteful emanation of personal disappointment; his lofty
morality is a cloak for unscrupulous self-seeking. He has always
shown himself ready to say anything or do anything that may serve
his own interests. In the general election of 1885 he made frantic
efforts to get into Parliament as a member of the Irish Party. He
ghosted every member of the party whose influence he thought might
help him--notably the two men, Mr. Dillon and Mr. O'Brien, at whom
he now sneers, as he fondly believes, in the safe seclusion of an
anonymous letter of an English newspaper. During the period of
probation his hand was incessant on Mr. Dillon's door-knocker. The
most earnest supplications were not spared. All in vain. Either his
character or his ability failed to satisfy the Irish leader, and
his claim was summarily rejected. Since then his wounded vanity has
found vent in spiteful calumny of almost every member of the Irish
Party--whenever he found malice a luxury that could be safely
indulged in.