The House of Carew, to speak in the parlance of modern marketing, had
radicalism as its logo: the analogy, with its intimation, merely, of gloss and
image, does not, perhaps, focus sufficiently on the genuine substance and
astounding longevity of this liberal disposition, extending over several
generations. I now enter a caveat: the radicalism of the Carews was
circumscribed by principled rejection of certain kinds of fundamental change
and in 1852, the annus horribilis of the Carews, a deficit of radicalism would
confound the endeavour of young Robert Shapland Carew to secure election as a
member of Parliament for Co. Wexford. The dilemma of the Carews was that while
trading in radicalism as their political franchise, they, given their caste and
lineage, sought to put boundaries to the march of radicalism. As a general
observation, the mood of post famine Ireland was altered; as we shall see in
later essays, the popular mood became truculent and laced with a muted antagonism
to the civil authority. An electoral Reform Act of 1851 had extended the
franchise obviating the need for freehold estate as a qualification for
exercising the franchise; a wider swathe of tenantry was thereby entitled to
vote.
While the legal entailing of the estate and the
unwritten rule of prim-geniture prescribed that he should succeed both to his
father’s estate and represent the family name and interest in the political
fray, young Robert Carew was the victim of a congenital physical disability of
which the illegible and laboured scrawls of one of his letters (written long
after he succeeded his father as Lord) in the Patrick Kennedy collection in the
Folk Lore Department at University College, Dublin1 are
symptomatic. His speeches, as reported,
are terse and lack the critical play of ideas, emotions and theatrical gestures
that enabled his father—like a splendid actor—to sway an audience to his cause.
While his father was an extrovert, a braggart and given to an easy affability
with crowds the younger Carew was emotionally distant from the crowds, slightly
reclusive and tempted to, on occasion, make the odd wry and misplaced allusion
to classical myth.
His manifesto, issued from Castleboro, and first
published in the Wexford Independent on March 6th of March 1852 (and
repeated there- after for several weeks, like the other manifestoes) is a mix
of anachronistic libertarianism and (on the land issue) progressive
conservatism attired as reined- in radicalism. It opens with banner headings
about “Civil and Religious Liberty”, “Progress and Reform” and the intended
resonance is the memory and myth of the Carews2, in the darkness of
the Penal era, alone of the Protestant potentates (the Colcloughs of Tintern
and possibly the Harveys exempted) asserting the principles of Catholic
emancipation. The unique and exciting triumph of the 1818 election when the two
Liberal candidates, young Carew’s father and Colclough were returned as the
members for Wexford abided still in living memory. Fr. Redmond of Arklow, in a
letter of April 7th, 1852, wrote of the honour of the Carews:
“The name of Carew has always been associated in my
mind, with the ideas of untarnished personal honour and of a faithful
maintenance of the principles of civil and religious liberty….More than thirty
years ago, I beheld the hills of Wexford blazing with bonfires for the return
of “Carew and Colclough” to represent that county in Parliament3”
Such radicalism, while admirable in the past, was by
1852 redundant, even anachronistic; to have it as a central plank of an
election campaign resembled generals preparing for a war long since over. As
early as the mid 1830ies there were disturbing signals that the Carews could
not take the loyalty of the Catholic peasantry for granted; the Wexford
Conservative was alert to this threat to its old adversary:
“Lord Carew was their friend and supporter before
and after Emancipation was granted, yet in 1834, when the Agitators and priests
commanded them, his Popish tenantry spurned his advice and voted for Mr. Waddy
in preference to Mr. Harvey who had his Worship’s interest4.” The
grandson of Laurence Sweetman of Ballymackessy who spent his life in America in
a letter written late in his life claimed that Lord Carew angrily accused his
grandfather of encouraging his tenants to vote against Cliffe the brother of
Carew’s wife, in the 1835 election and that Sweetman replied that his
convictions would not allow him to support the anti-Catholic campaign of
Cliffe. The younger Sweetman tended to be reckless in regard to detail or
confused about it and in his letters to the fanatical nationalist Canon Pat
Murphy of Glynn may have exaggerated any morsel of anti-authoritarianism on the
part of his family but even withstanding that caveat I still feel that his letter
does reflect some serious disquiet between the Castleboro family and the
Catholic leaders in that period5
Young Carew
could, also, get caught by friendly fire, such as from the letter, in his
favour, addressed from Breeze Hill (pseudonym of Hugh O’Neill the pompous and
legendary schoolmaster at the Carew
school at Cloughbawn) to the Wexford Independent; the confusion of distinct
historical eras, the unnecessary recall of an atrophied atavism and the lurid
imagery could create the kind of miasma that would discourage moderate
Protestant voters:
“The Hon. Mr. Carew, when sixty years ago, assisted
only by the noble-hearted William Harvey of Kyle, he was the first Protestant
in this county, who dared raise his voice in favour of concession to his
persecuted Roman Catholic countrymen, when their priests were hunted, like wild
beasts even to the death6” The claim that priests were hunted as
late as 1790 is outlandish.
Priest hunting in 1852 could only be discerned,
only, in mirage, in the heat of the hustings. What the first Lord Carew called
the great Act of Catholic Emancipation had completed the process, begun with
the relief acts of the 1770’s, of removing legal disabilities on that
community, legalities slowly becoming mere artefacts of an infernal, callous
and cruel era now wasted into oblivion: the Catholic clergyman of 1852 was most
unlikely to seek shelter in the cavern of a windswept mountain or in a fox
covert, in the bogs of Ballymackessy.. Fr. Tom Furlong had, by 1846, moved into
a palatial residence at Cloughbawn—one might presume that Lord Carew made a
substantial donation to its construction
The myth, memory and name of the Carews as the
dauntless defenders and avengers of the Catholic people still held a residual
electoral traction as many of the more senior clergymen (and some younger ones)
were in thrall to the mystique of the Castleboro quasi- dynasty. At the height
of a fierce controversy over alleged evictions on their estate, several
clergymen signed a statement in favour of Carew,s beleaguered candidature; this
was published in the Wexford Independent and Greene, the editor and proprietor,
promised further augmentation to it. However, there were no further additions
to this list:
Andrew Barden,
Archdeacon, P.P. Tintern
John Dunne P.P. Ballindaggin
Francis Prendergast P.P. Davidstown
Thomas Furlong P.P. Killegney
Peter Dunne C.C.
John Colfer C.C.
Martin Doyle P.P. Graig and an elector of the county
James Walsh P.P. Ross
Patrick Crane O.S.A.
PhilipCullen P.P. Rathangan
Peter Corish P.P. Bannow
William Codd R.C.C. Hook
John Dunne C.C.
Philip Mayler P.P. Kilmore
James Fanning C.C. Kilmore
John Barry P.P. Crossabeg
Thomas Stafford P.P. Castlebridge
M. Moran P.P. Blackwater
Patrick Marshall P.P. Clongeen
Thomas Busher P.P. Oilgate
William Roche C.C. Ballindaggin
Clement Reville P.O.S.F. Wexford
William Murphy C.C. Wexford
Peter Barry C.C. Mayglass
John Furlong D.D. New Ross7.”
I am a little cautious about this list. Fr. Furlong
and Fr. John Colfer of Courtnacuddy as recipients of Carew largesse would be
obviously disposed to support the Carews: aside from the more altruistic and
philosophical motivations, the practical political consideration of bringing
the Catholic clergy onto their side would—in part at least—have influenced the
Carew commitment to building Catholic schools, chapels and presbyteries. Fr.
Meylor of Kilmore was linked by kinship and blood to the Fitzhenrys (Meylor
Fitzhenry was their common ancestor, in an era when such matters were of
account) and therefore to the Carews. Fr. Prendergast of Davidstown was Fr.
Colfer’s superior and, at the very least, received money from the Carews for
church building, some years later. Fr. Corish in Bannow was a beneficiary of
the largesse of Thomas Boyse, who was connected to the Carews by marriage. The
Curates in Ballindaggin and Kilmore may have felt obliged to follow their
superiors’ example Fr Dunne of Ballindaggin was reared in the Courtnacuddy area
on the Carew estate. One signatory lived outside the county. Potentates, in
this era, made profligate investments in their political ambitions: between
them Carew and Colclough spent £35,0000 on their campaigns of 1818.
This phalanx of support might well have swayed the
Catholic electors towards Carew if the rest of the clergy had remained passive:
the unprecedented development of this election was that many of the clergy were
positively—and with firm coercion—acting for rival candidates. Fr. Redmond of
Arklow, in a letter of to the Wexford Independent excoriated them:
“It was a sad spectacle to see Catholic clergymen
bringing up batches of electors to plump for some favourite forgetting in their
insane rivalry the common enemy8.”
A peripheral reason for the debacle of 1852 was that
the paradigm of the House of Carew—a cosmos of cottiers, labourers and tenants
in clamorous praise of their lord and master, an ebullient public person with a
feint likeness to Don Quixote—as advocated by its acolytes was misplaced in the
incipient egalitarianism of post Famine Ireland. Patrick Kennedy (alias Harry
Whitney) in a letter to Greene’s paper of June 14th, 1852 gives such
a vignette but a perverse mind—such as that of the present author—could, on the
contrary, discern there collective imbecility, a veneration of social hierarchy
as defined by lineage and hereditary prescription—and a confusion of education
and indoctrination:
“I once formed a unit in Mr. O’Neill’s school, where
swelling the procession from Clonroche to Castleboro on Lord (then Mr.) Carew’s
triumphal return from the Wexford hustings; and the heartfelt joy shown by the
dense, and shouting and exulting crowd all along the shady road and roused to
the highest pitch when on arriving at the castle, he presented his eldest son
to the affectionate and enthusiastic multitude of his humble friends9.”
The presentation of infant heir was calculated to bring forth an exultant and
idolatrous response from the crowd; it was a trick to set the Carews apart from
ordinary humankind and to invite the people to worship them. It was tried again
and worked for the last time at the celebrations of the birth of the heir to
the young Carew then the second Lord Bob Carew in late 1860. Young Carew, the candidate in this
election, was that eldest son and only recently born (in 1818): Kennedy was
adept at subliminal suggestion; the image of the re-birth of a quasi-dynasty
(that of the Carews) is woven onto the mystery of the Incarnation of Christ.
Kennedy’s excessive resort to hyperbole and untruth to exalt the Carew cosmos
mars his writings.
In the modern era political leaders remunerate
articulate people to spin the news in their favour: there is no doubt that Pat
Kennedy, Hugh O’Neill (the master of the school at Cloughbawn), Ned Carroll the
Courtnacuddy born horticulturist and newspaper editor and Fr. Tom Furlong the pastor
of Killegney acted as spin-doctors for the House of Carew: the conundrum is
whether they did so at the behest of the Castleboro family. With the exception
of Fr. Furlong these men owed their careers to the patronage of the Carews, a
matter all three proclaimed repeatedly to the world. Fr. Furlong in his grim
parish would have relished the largesse of the Carews. He may have been born on
their estates at Taghmon and the Carews may have educated him. In the letter
already quoted Pat Kennedy relates how the first Baron Bob Carew put him on the
road to success:
“afterwards by his favour I was sent to the
Education Society in Dublin, was promoted to a school on another part of his
estate and when I afterwards removed to this city was presented with a considerable
sum of money beyond what I was entitled to.” The mildest interpretation that
one can put on this is that the Carews aided talented young men to achieve
their potential and assumed that by their professional services they would
enhance both the Carew estate and the work for the wider objectives of the
Castleboro family. I would stop short of saying that that they made a cynical
calculation to deliberately create spin-doctors for their cause.
The fundamental causation of the 1852 debacle (the
defeat of young Carew) was the enigma of tenant right to which Carew, in his
manifesto gave a literal and categorical assent:-
“With regard to the Landlord and tenant question, I
should wish to see a bill carried by which the tenant might be encouraged in
developing the capabilities of his holding and I think it a right and fair
principle that at the expiration of his tenure, the tenant shall be amply
compensated for the capital he has invested in the improvement of his farm”10.
In a subsequent letter, young Carew, in an allusion to the Ulster custom
explained that “In this county there is neither law nor custom in the matter
and it is right that the tenant should have the protection which Sharman
Crawford proposes to give11. He envisaged tenant right as, in its removal
of a manifest injustice, affording extra stability to the prevailing system; he
baulked, perhaps in a subliminal way, at any fundamental alteration of it: --
“Any Bill that may be brought forward, which secures
to the tenant the results of his industry whilst it at the same time protects
the Owners and Occupiers in their just rights will meet with my support”12.
The radical elements in the Tenant League regarded
tenant right as a concentration of pan Catholic/Nationalist forces, in a
tactical ploy to achieve a limited objective; the potentialities of this
measure (to them) beckoned towards the utter subversion of the land system. In
that context, Carew was conservative. A report of the Mayglass Tenant
Protection Society, with the Rev. Peter Barry in the chair was concisely
prescient as to the course of this election:--
“This committee are pledged, as are most of the
clergy of the county to support Mr. Grogan Morgan. There was a difference of
opinion as to the merits of the Hon. Mr. Carew or Mr. Nunn, some for one and
some for the other and some for neither; so if a League candidate presented
himself, he would be supported jointly with Mr. Morgan who gave his vote
conscientiously and supported no particular party”13. Morgan
actually was of the Liberal tendency and in a loose coalition with Carew, to
whom he was related This represented a shift of this group away from Carew as
at an earlier meeting in late March “there was evidently a feeling in his
favour” but the reason for supporting him was less than dramatic: “that he
contributed to the Christian Brothers Institution in New Ross” and had promised
it an annual donation14. Patrick Mc Mahon, a journalist and
barrister of sorts working in London, waited in the wings, as the radical
standard bearer.
The radicals
of the Tenant League now had Carew in their sights and in a campaign of
vilification – maliciously adroit, grotesquely comical—purportedly based on a
scrutiny of court records, they challenged Carew over alleged evictions on the
Castleboro estate.
In a coherent but desperate endeavour to limit the
damage, the agent on the Carew estate, William Russell Farmar of Bloomfield, in
a letter to the Wexford Independent15 responded to an outrageous
statement by a Tenant Protection Committee meeting at Wexford on the 23rd
of March 1852—it referred to “The evictions and other means applied by Lord
Carew of ridding his estates of the old inhabitants by advertisements in the
Edinburgh offices for Scotch farmers and his recent importation of them16.”
The defect in Farmar’s reply is that the reader would inevitably see through
its plausibility. He responded to allegations about four particular holdings.
Farmar pointed out that there was only one Scotch
tenant on the estate (Elder I presume) and outlined how he came to be there:
“Lord Carew through my hands lent the tenant a
considerable sum to purchase sheep; this sum with his entire stock, crop and
everything portable he shortly afterwards carried away by night though not ever
pressed for rent and not giving possession before he went of course we were
obliged to eject16.” Bill
Farmar always contrived an explanation that Lord Carew sought a decree to evict
for technical reasons only! The farm was then let to a Scotch tenant “at a
higher rent than the previous one.”
On another farm “the late occupier, although not
ever threatened with ejectment also ran off by night taking all his goods; he,
thus, also compelling us to eject to recover possession. The tenant’s land was
drained for him, timber and slates were given him for house and offices.” My
suspicion is that, even if threats of eviction were not made, the two tenants
involved may have seen such proceedings as eventually inevitable: it is of
course very possible that tenants may have acted with outright cynicism in such
situations.
On the third holding, a farm “of excellent land” at
7s an acre the creditors placed it in Chancery and it was underlet to strangers
who paid no rents so the Court of Chancery allowed it to be evicted.
The fourth holding consisted “of four smaller added
together”. One occupier of these holdings after Lord Carew gave him £30 went
voluntarily to America; “not being able to live there even though paying no
rent.” This is, I think, a roundabout way of saying that a clearance of a kind
was taking place on the Carew estate and it would seem that a man in that
situation would have little option but to accept the money offered and depart;
it would cost the Carews money also to take the tenant to court so an
inducement to get a tenant to go voluntarily was a convenient means to achieve
the same end.
A second occupier of one of these holdings was given
“£10 from Lord Carew which enabled her to provide for herself instead of
starving on a smallholding, which she was unable to cultivate.” Farmar does not
specify how she managed to live on £10; she may have taken a job but she could
have done that while still staying on her smallholding; in other words Lord
Carew did not provide a magical solution as Farmar implies.
A third occupier of one of these holdings was
“forgiven all arrears and given another holding.” I presume that he was given a
bigger or better holding: it seems obvious that relentless sub-dividing had
created unviable holdings.
The fourth
man was offered either £10 or a house and one acre free for life. Again it is
difficult to see how this man could live on £10 or how alternatively he could
maintain himself on one acre. One is effectively talking of minimal or indeed
token inducements to clear the estate of wretched tenancies and in most cases
of the tenants themselves.
On the 1st
of May 1852 Bill Farmar17 replied to letters written by James
Johnson, of the Wexford Tenant Protection, which were published in newspapers
either indifferent or inimical to Carew. Farmar, a dour and opulent man, was
not lumbered with excessive social vision; in this letter he does, however,
enunciate certain—slightly humane—principles to underline a landlord’s
obligation to his tenantry. On another occasion, in his role as agent to a
clerical landowner he claimed to observe similar precepts: --
“I asserted that Lord Carew did not dispossess any
tenant who was able to hold and properly cultivate his land and live even if
forgiven arrears, that we had only got one Scotch tenant and that so far from
being desirous of getting rid of Irish tenants Lord Carew exerted himself to
retain them” The reference to racial background of tenants is our introduction
to a new issue in the land agitation: as the devotional revolution augmented,
the fear of Catholic zealots (sometimes justified) that the religious character
of Irish society could be altered by an influx of non-Catholic tenants. Using a
creepy diplomacy, Farmar proceeded to insist that the landlord could not commit
himself, exclusively, to philanthropy:--
“that where a tenant becomes totally unable to
cultivate the land, where he holds it only to destroy its productiveness
without benefit to himself and moreover pays no rent for a very considerable
period the landlord, in such cases, is to be allowed the privilege of saving
his property from useless waste, by ejectment or other means, so long as he
acts with humanity according to the circumstances of each case”. He added that
the landlord was not responsible for the import to tenants of “calamities which
resulted as is universally known, from an awful visitation of Providence”. He
asserted, at the end of his letter, that no tenant was driven to the poorhouse.
He, further, claimed that there had been only one Scottish tenant on the
estate—a man called Elder; a farm at Tomfarney “we disposed of” to another
Scottish man, a Clarke. The size of Clarke’s farm—given as circa 154 acres in
the Griffith’s Valuation of 1853—may have infuriated those Catholics on tiny
tenancies. Farmar then attempted a rebuttal of Johnson’s allegations, item by
item, tenant by tenant
.
1.
William Ryan of Coolnacon; failure of potato crop and a large arrears.
He was given £5 and had a work bill due to him paid; he left voluntarily and
blessed Lord Carew “for his kindness”. For comparison purposes, a Thomas Neill was given £7 by the
authorities at the Enniscorthy Workhouse to emigrate to Canada in 1845
2.
Michael Hennessy of Old Ross made some effort to pay arrears of two
years rent and was not disturbed.
3.
Laurence Parle of Chapel; got his crop and left voluntarily.
4.
Paul Rushford of Old Ross on making an effort to pay arrears was left
undisturbed.
5.
Denis Cahill of Old Ross; despite four and a half years of unpaid rent
he was still in his cabin on a small garden.
6.
Luke Walsh of Coolnacon; he was given £2 to leave (voluntarily) his
plot of 1 acre and 2 roods.
7.
Patrick Breen of Forrestalstown was given £6 to leave his plot of 6
acres and 2 roods, which was exhausted. He went to America.
8.
Thomas Grace of Tomanearly emigrated to America and left his wife
behind; three years arrears but Lord Carew gave the abandoned wife £1.
9.
Daniel Lacy of Courtnacuddy went to America before ejectment, the land
was untilled with arrears of four and a half years.
10.
Patrick Allen and Laurence Doyle of Tomanearly; ejectment was here used
as a legal device to break a lease “by consent of the parties” and both were
still in possession.
11.
Margaret Kennedy and Thomas Jordan of Tombrick.. The latter was merely
a cottier on the holding. Kennedy had clandestinely removed her cattle and corn
from the land; there were two and a half years unpaid rent. She was about to
throw down the houses before ejectment. The land was untilled.
12.
James Byrne of Wheelagour. He never paid a penny for a house and an
acre and went to another house in the neighbourhood.
13.
Patrick Ronan of Clonroche. Despite four and a half years rent he was,
at the request of Fr. Tom Furlong given another trial .
14.
James Kelly, Loughlan Doyle, Darby Kavanagh, Patrick Kelly, Loughlan
Doyle, James Kelly, William Kelly, Patrick Kelly, John Sullivan, Catherine
Devereaux (three are the same persons repeated). Farm at Knockmore; two
ejectments. Occupants: Loughlan Doyle and William Kelly.; they ran off. Doyle
left a wife behind but kept a loan of £30 from Lord Carew. Kelly, in leaving,
took his stock with him. All the others are cottiers; two of them are still in
Carew’s employment and in the same houses.
15.
Philip Cogley of Poulpeasty in arrears since 1848 for his plot of three
roods and fifteen perches.
16.
Patrick Brian of Poulpeasty; in America for two years; his wife owes
four years rent.
17.
Judith Dunne of Rathfilane; she paid one year’s rent but four years
rent is owed.
18.
E. Clancy, Wm. Clancy of Coolnacon; several year’s rent was owed but
due to the difficulty of determining “which was the tenant” no decree was
obtained.
19.
Clara Coady, Martin Byrne of Raheen; there were four and a half years
arrears of £121 5s, 5d (old money).
Byrne emigrated to America and left his wife helpless behind with Clara Coady.
Lord Carew gave her a house and three acres of land.
20.
James Lacy, Michael Madden, John Maguire of Clonroche. The tenant,
James Lacy went to America and the land was gone to waste; the other two were
“merely parties to be served to obtain possession
Kinshelagh of Poulpeasty
would prove to be one of Farmar’s sorest irritations; the local Curate, Fr. D.
Doyle weighed in with visceral attacks on the Carews, prompted by this
eviction. Farmar explained that £147, 18s, 0d were owed and that, in May 1848,
he got only £10 of one’s year’s rent bill of £64,7s, 7d and a promise to pay
the rest in the fall of the year; on October 25th, he sought
“further time” and, shortly afterwards, he cunningly removed “all his cattle”.
The legal remedy of “distress was laid on what property he left”; Kinshelagh
countered by this simple expedient: the “greater part of the corn and hay was
removed by night” and the bailiffs—put there by Farmar, I Presume—were kept off
by force. Kinshelagh had given Farmar a bill of exchange that he later
dishonoured leaving the estate agent liable for the money owing to Carew.
In his missive of 13 May
1852, Farmar18 wrestled with the crazy enigma of Marks Kehoe of
Tomfarney, “the far famed and memorable Marks Kehoe of Tomfarney”, as Ned
Carroll dubbed him, in derision and exasperation. He now owed £188 and farmed
“22 acres of naturally excellent land on which Lord Carew expended a
considerable sum in drainage, without any additional charge”. At the time of
his attempted ejectment, he owed £54,5s, 9d and “he had taken benefit of the
Insolvent Act”; decrees were held against him but he was given another trial
and was still at Tomfarney. Carroll alleged that Kehoe was paying reduced rent,
a matter that angered his neighbours, who were required to pay the full rent19.
The controversy over the
Widow Kehoe’s land deeply angered and disturbed Farmar, that foulest and
darkest of calumnies as he regarded it. Hugh O’Neill stated the Carew version
of the story: in 1846 Martin Kehoe “owed nearly three years of rent—his land
was in a state of exhaustion from lack of manure.” Lord Carew gave him money to
procure seed corn but Kehoe got into the hands of usurers as one might expect.
The loss of all the local papers of the period except the Wexford Independent
makes it impossible to get to the exact truth of the matter but it does seem
that on the basis of litigation instigated by the usurers (I presume) Kehoe
went to jail and died shortly after his return. Farmar offered the widow £16 to
give up possession or a house and acre rent free for life and a job for her
daughter at Castleboro20.
The Carew spin invariably
and inevitably exonerated the family of Castleboro of culpability for the
hideous matter of eviction: the decrees were required for reasons of legal
technicalities; the tenants left voluntarily and blessing Bob Carew for the aid
or money given to them; any action taken was intended to relieve the tenant’s
distress and besides nobody went to the poorhouse. The option of emigration may
have emboldened the more brazen tenants to defy and manipulate the Carews as is
evident from Farmar’s account but it also enhanced the spin that the Carew
apologists engaged in. It sounded better to say that a man and his family had
emigrated than to say that they went to the poorhouse or now dwelt in the
ditch. The small sums of money offered
to the tenants to give up possession were in lieu, effectively, of the cost of
talking legal proceedings for a decree to eject them. The offer of a house
rent-free and/or a job on the estate to defaulting tenants hints a more humane
strategy of ending tenancies than that of driving the tenants off the
estate altogether. The procedures outlined by Farmar are a euphemism for a
partial clearance of the more wretched tenancies—if not the tenants—from the
estate: these tenancies seem to have been an outcome of endless sub-division
under the relentless demographic pressures of pre-famine Ireland If Lord Carew
merely meant to relieve their distress why did he not give them the bit of
money and let them have their tenancy rent free for life? It is of course an absurd
question but I pose it to ridicule the implication of the Carew apologists that
Bob Carew was motivated by outright altruism! That these tiny applotments were
held directly from Bob Carew is proof that the middleman system had disappeared
since previously these tenancies would represent leases from a middleman.
The irony is that Farmar’s
apologia, despite its reasoned approach and vestiges of humanity, was of
necessity electorally damning to Carew in that it effectively conceded that
tenants were assisted off the estate; the radical agitators would scorn my
euphemism! The Carews would be duly reminded of this at the next great
controversy of the campaign.
A major public meeting, of
the Catholic and farming interests, to concert strategy for the coming election
convened in the Abbey Grounds in Enniscorthy, in late May. The radicals of the
Tenant League came determined to introduce the issue of having an outsider
named Pat Mc Mahon stand to espouse a more radical policy on the land question
while the supporters of Grogan, Morgan and Carew (the latter two cousins of
each other) sought equally to manipulate it to achieve an endorsement of their
favourites. John Greene’s allegation of manipulation by the radicals was not
balanced by an acknowledgement of identical intent on the part of his friends.
The 78-year-old Fr. Tom Furlong of Killegney, “that venerable, consistent and
sterling patriot, the Nestor of this distinguished diocese” (Greene’s encomium
to him in the Wexford independent), after consultation with other conservative
figures, complacently assumed the chair. His introductory remarks indicate a
mindset unable to comprehend the protocol let alone
the—sometimes-bewildering—challenge of democratic debate and decision-making:
“that they had assembled for
one of the most important purposes that could engage the attention of
freemen—that of selecting fit and proper persons to represent them in
Parliament, not to represent the wishes or promote the views of a party or
faction but to reflect truthfully the sentiments of the whole people.
Heretofore the independence of this noble county had been properly maintained
by the union of the people and he fervently hoped that they would ever be
guided by the same principles. They had five candidates in the field. His individual
opinion”21—
Fr Furlong’s sublime concept
of “the whole people” transcending the mere parties and factions was
disingenuous since he himself spoke for a party—the Carews and if his words
were not cut off he would have given his individual opinion (an inappropriate
thing for him to do) that the meeting should support young Carew and his cousin
Mr. Morgan. The defiant intervention of a spokesman of the Tenant League
movement abruptly curtailed the expression of Fr Furlong’s opinion:
“James Johnson interposed
and said that the Rev. T. Furlong had no right to be in the chair; that it was
a packed meeting”. Fr. Furlong angrily retorted: --“No Sir, I am for no party
but for the public good and my object is to counteract the very thing that you
accuse me of. I endeavour to represent public opinion and not my own individual
feeling.”
A priest intervened to say the blindingly
obvious and contended that there was not chair:
“ For his part he considered that where the
Rev. Mr. Furlong made himself active in the support of one party; it would be
prejudicial to have him continue in the chair. He hoped that the reverend and
respected man (Rev. Mr. Furlong) would not consider it unkind of him (Rev. Mr.
Parle) to take the course he did (great noise and disorder).” There was renewed
uproar as Johnson once again shouted at Fr. Furlong: -- “You are the chairman
of a party” to which Tom Furlong replied: “No sir I am not—I deny it
emphatically22.”
On the proposal—“for peace
sake”—of a Captain Percy Harvey and seconded by Mr. Sweetman, the magistrate
(possibly, the Ballymackessy man), a Mr. Devereaux took the chair23.
While Matthew Maylor of Kilmore (a kinsman of the Fitzhenrys, and also –I
think—of the Carews) later wrote solemnly of “a wanton and unworthy indignity
upon the most venerable and venerated pastor in the diocese”24,
there are scant indications of any outcry over the debacle to Fr. Furlong. He
was in Jack Greene’s memorable phrase a pastor of the old school and at that
stage of his life possibly confused: time itself had passed Tom Furlong by and
he could not adjust to the tedious reality of conflicting views in a democratic
situation—it would no longer suffice for Tom Furlong merely to look into his
own heart! The wording of part of the
report may suggest that the elderly priest was not fully conscious of his
abjection and humiliation as he continued to assume, after his deposition, that
he had some enigmatic power of veto; in response to the issue of a radical
candidate, Fr. Furlong asserted:
“I must put my veto on that
whilst there are two gentlemen in the county who have fully come up to the
wishes of the people. The nomination of a stranger could only be to create
division and bad feeling”25.
When a speaker referred to cruel landlords, in
order to affect a contrast with the exemplary discharge of such
responsibilities by Morgan and Carew, a Mr. Thomas Whitty “observed that there
have been plenty turned off Lord Carew’s estate”26. This kind of
coruscating wit was characteristic of the campaign of the Tenant League. The
pressures and exigencies of the campaign had by now effected a slight
metamorphosis on young Carew, himself; in a sure sign of mounting panic, he had
re-invented himself as an incipient separatist: in a letter to the meeting, he
not only supported Sharman Crawford’s bill and “the glorious principles of
Catholic Emancipation” but seemed to anticipate the future Parnellite strategy
of an independent Irish party:--
“that I consider a strong
and independent Irish party indispensable and that I shall co-operate by every
means in my power in the formation of such a party27.”
The obvious potentialities
of such a development are separatist and tend towards an independent Ireland.
It was, precisely, the issue of Repeal of the Act of Union that forced Carew to
stand down as member for Waterford on a previous occasion, as a priest from
that city explained, in a letter, to Greene’s paper:--
“the “repeal” pledge became
a test with most of the liberal constituencies of Ireland. The excitement
became so great in favour of that all absorbing question that Mr. Carew yielded
to the pressure and sooner than divide a constituency, hitherto united, he and
his respected colleague retired from a contest that would probably terminate in
their return28.” The first Lord
Carew in contrast to his father favoured the Union and was edgy about Repeal
although hinting that he might his mind if the political wind blew strongly
enough in that direction—he had the flexible psychology of a modern politician
but I am not sure if his son could do likewise.
My judgement, albeit a
tentative one, is that aspects of the Tenant League campaign against Carew were
scurrilous, malicious and deceitful. It is possible that inducements were made
to or/and coercion brought on individual tenants to exculpate and commend Lord
Carew publicly. Nevertheless, the number of tenants that were angered by
Johnson’s claims—and prepared to state so publicly – was sizable.
Joseph Dalton of Old Ross,
in a letter to Greene’s paper, bluntly declared that (contrary to Johnson’s
allegation) he was not evicted but had been given a new lease of 16 years at
16s per acre29. His letter to the local media is a direct and total
refutation of the allegations made by James Johnson of the Tenant League in
regard to him: “that I was one of the tenants evicted by Lord Carew, off his
estate on Old Ross, as may be seen on reference to the Records of the Barrister
Court for this county in the year 1845 if this veritable gentleman is to be
credited.” After complimentary references to Lord Carew and his agent Bill
Farmar Joe Dalton set the record straight:
“I have to state that I
never was then or at any other time evicted and that 14 years since, when my
former lease expired, I got a new lease of my farm from his Lordship at the
moderate rate of 16s per Irish acre although he could at that time have readily
got one pound five shillings per acre for it from any other solvent tenant.” He
informs us that Lord Carew had purchased the Old Ross estate from Colonel Ram.
He concluded that at Woodstown or Castleboro “on business, he always treated me
with the greatest courtesy and kindness and always on such occasions making me
partake of the best refreshments and other hospitalities.”
Michael Connor of Tomfarney,
agreed that an ejectment had indeed been obtained against him but for a
technical reason: my suspicion is that, in this and similar cases, the
ejectment order was revoked, possibly, on condition that the tenant would in
gratitude, write to the papers to confound Johnson. It is, also, possible, that
Connor is telling the truth!
“I had been ejected, it is
true, but for my own benefit. First to detach from my farm 15 acres of bad
land; second in order to enable me to get rid of a troublesome workman who had
a small holding under me which he sought to make perpetual”. The letter later
refers to Carew’s “good and amiable agent, Mr. Farmar”. Connor tells of seeing
his name, listed on a placard in Enniscorthy, as an evicted tenant and the
letter concludes with scraps of autobiographical detail: “I was let without my
father at the early age of thirteen years, with two younger sisters and a
widowed mother whose health was too much impaired to counsel or assist me in
the management of a large farm.” The circumstances of the time could place a
heavy burden on very young shoulders.
John Bligh of Clonroche’s
letter is also, slightly, enigmatic.
“I held one acre in the
townsland of Chapel under the Rt. Hon. Lord Carew and for which I paid no rent
for ten years previous to my giving it up nor did his lordship ask or demand
from me one penny of rent for my holding during that time. Conceiving that I
might do better by carrying on my trade in a public place, his Lordship
generously gave me ten pounds and annexed my acre of land to another farm adjacent”31.
Is this the same John Bligh who served as process server, and was once brought
before the Assizes on a charge of sheep stealing? His role as an agent of the law may have
induced the Carews to treat him more leniently? An alternative reading of this
letter is that Lord Carew gave Bligh £10 to leave his holding and, presumably,
go to live in Clonroche: it looks suspiciously like a clearance of
another of those wretched tenancies. My added suspicion is that is that Hugh
O’Neill may have ghostwritten these letters after pressure was applied to the
tenants involved to assent to signing them.
James Clancy of Coolnacon,
in a bitter reply to “James A. Johnson’s lying placard”, flatly denied that he
was evicted32. George Mc Cloney of Old Ross stated likewise33.
As already indicated, Ned
Carroll (as a matter of inevitability) bumbled into the controversy. The
purpose of his letter—an awkward piece of propaganda—was to demonstrate that a
de facto form of tenant right had traditionally existed on the Carew estate; I
am not sure if he succeeds in doing that as his excessively long sentences and
prodigious verbiage obscure the intended meaning. His rejoinder to James
Johnson is however a trifle witty:
“I will begin with the case
of my old and esteemed relative, Luke Devereux, said to be evicted with two
families from Courtnacuddy, where I was born and reared. For the last century
there was not a man named Luke Devereux born or reared in Courtnacuddy but one
and he poor fellow is rotting in his grave in the quiet churchyard of Rossdroit
nearly one fourth of that time.” He then
proceeds to outline an outlandish interpretation of tenant right:
“He before his death divided his farm between
his eldest son John and his second eldest daughter Mary. They both got married
and had families. Poor John long since died but his wife and sister with their
families live in their respective homes yet holding portions of their lands,
having sold their interest in the other portions to their relatives and their
neighbours adjoining them, according to the tenant right custom—a custom I saw
in practice in the same townland over 40 years ago34.”
What Carroll is describing
is the sale of the residue of a tenant’s lease, a procedure that required the
assent of the estate agent on the Carew holdings. Tenant right involved the
landlord having to compensate a tenant at the expiry of a lease for
improvements made by the tenant. The most obvious precedent for tenant right in
this locality was the trees legislation, so deftly outlined by Arthur Young, in
which a tenant could ask a jury in a court to determine the value of trees sown
and registered as such by him; those bitter adversaries the Rev. Jim Gordon the
second rector of Killegney and the future first Lord Carew registered trees
under this legislation.
The Carews were acutely
conscious of a likely populist perception of them as aliens and foreigners who
had usurped an indigenous culture. Any perception that they were assisting off
(I speak euphemistically!) impoverished members of that older community could
easily arouse the kind of atavism, racial bile and religious mania that
underlined the Defender input to the catastrophe of 1798. On July 7th,
1852, Lord Carew wrote a letter of gratitude to Laurence Sweetman for having
arranged for the tenants of the estate to sign a petition in “refutation of the
calumnies against Lord Carew”. It is the epistle of a man desperately scraping
for proofs of the acceptance of himself and his kind as the revered and natural
leaders of their community; it leaves open the possibility of their
dislodgment:--
“When my house was burning
my friends, tenants and neighbours came forward in a manner which made me proud
of them and of Wexford….My family has resided here for generations known and
loved by you and your forefathers and I trust the time is far distant when the
name of Carew will have ceased to be
loved and respected”35. If one is genuinely of the people then one
automatically assume that one’s neighbours will try to stop one’s home burning
down! Farmar wrote a similar letter to the papers after a fire at Bloomfield
but I presume that the crowds at Castleboro would have been a bit more sincere
in their effusion of affection and succour.
The sincerity of
those who signed the petition is, sadly, doubtful: even as late as the
beginning of the twentieth century people signed petitions and made oaths,
sometimes as a matter of form and often because they deemed it prudent to do
so! In 1910, the men of the Co. Wexford took the pledge to abstain from all
alcoholic drink, without any appreciable outcome. (The names of the tenants
that signed are, for the most part, Catholic). Sweetman, as a kinsman of
Jeremiah Fitzhenry of Borohill, would obviously favour the Carews: he had
personally known Lord Carew since his childhood, according to a speech made by
him at the celebration for the birth of the heir to the second Lord Carew in
1860. I presume that he became acquainted with the future Lord Carew during
visits to Ballymackessy to Billy Fitzhenry (Jeremiah’s father who served as
estate agent on the Carew estate for over 60 years). Lord Carew, as County
Lieutenant, undoubtedly appointed Sweetman as magistrate to the local petty
sessions at Clonroche.
The petition signed by
priests in favour of young Carew is predominantly representative of the senior
clergy; the younger ones were at least muted as regards the election and some
of them were vociferous in the campaign to elect the Tenant League candidate
Pat Mc Mahon: in this area the frontal conflict of views between Fr Tom Furlong
and his curate Fr. Dennis Doyle was painfully obvious and paralleled by
incandescent rows between Fr. Doyle—on behalf of evicted or wronged tenants—and
respectable parishioners. Fr. Doyle was a gifted and devious controversialist
whose campaign of vituperation targeted, among others, Clonroche’s most solemn,
sententious and domineering citizen Hugh O’Neill: there is something perversely
comical about his jibes at the old patriarch:
“O’Neill, I believe lives in
Clonroche, is an ex-schoolmaster—a tenant of Lord Carew’s, two of his family
got situations as teachers of National Schools through the interest of Lord
Carew and I should say a third, if not already after getting a situation, is
expecting it. He belongs to that class of persons, who are in the habit of
intermeddling in other people’s affairs36” It is worthwhile studying
nineteenth century history to get a quote like that! O’Neill did not directly
refute Fr. Doyle’s claims but got in a pointed observation of his own: “I am
the proprietor of the house, in which their (his sons) schools are kept, under
the management of the Rev. Mr. Furlong P.P. Mr. Doyle’s respected and venerable
superior37.” He continued:
“I live at Clonroche,
in my own castle built by my own honesty earnings, not the earnings of “en
ex-hedge schoolmaster wrung from the pockets of the poor for their children’s
education but the more Liberal reward of the nobility and gentry for my care
and attention in instructing their children through the course of a long life”.
O’Neill’s reference to the nobility and gentry is a measure not only of the
social conservatism of the Gallican philosophy which he espoused but, more
pertinently, of its anachronism in an age of franchise reform and nascent
democracy. Or that is the interpretation appropriate to that quotation because
O’Neill, like the wind, shifted his position as regards the pedigree of the
children in his care: in a previous letter he had stated that Bob Carew had
established the little school at Cloughbawn in 1817 as part of his obligation
as a major proprietor to provide for the education of the humbler classes38.
O’Neill, like a good father, boasted of his
children, especially of one of his daughters who was “the only first class
female teacher in the county39.” The performance of two of his sons
at Clonroche school later on would give him little to boast about: their
fondness for the alcohol may have related to the fact that their father owned a
pub in Clonroche. One of the above quotations indicates that O’Neill built his
house in Clonroche; according to the House Books in the National Archives his
house was outside the village boundaries on the road down to Cloughbawn; his
sons may have taught in the house of or attached to the pub (the Boro Inn is a
sort of continuum from it).
O’Neill was flinty on the
issue of eviction. He methodically illustrated the outrageous exaggeration in
figures used by James A. Johnson in his attacks on the Carews for their
evictions.
Johnson alleged that 32
families were evicted in 1847; according to O’Neill not one occupant was turned
out. Johnson alleged that in 1848 that 43 families were evicted but O’Neill
countered that six left their holdings and that four were evicted. Johnson
alleged that 49 families were evicted in 1849 and O’Neill claimed that only 4
were evicted. Johnson alleged that 38 families were evicted in 1850 while
O’Neill put the figure at 3. Johnson claimed that 24 families were evicted in
1851 and O’Neill said that 8 left their holdings and 2 were evicted. According
to Johnson 35 families were evicted in 1852 and O’Neill claimed that 4 left
their holdings and 1 family was evicted.
On Johnson’s count 216
families and a total of 1086 people had been cleared off the Carew estate from
1847-1852 and driven to the poor-house, the grave or to emigrate. On O’Neill’s
count 14 families were evicted40.
O’Neill is clearly
disingenuous in his statistics as the families leaving their holdings
undoubtedly did so, in most cases, under duress—they were effectively cleared
off. Nevertheless the inflation of the misery involved by James A. Johnson was
a despicable electioneering trick. The really depressing aspect of O’Neill’s
commentary is that he was at ease with the eviction of his neighbours during
the grimmest years in modern Irish history: the eviction of any family from
their home has to be horrendous, especially if they had to go to the roadside
in the intimidating climatic conditions of the nineteenth century. O’Neill
wrote that he lived “within twenty minutes walk of the scenes of evictions so disingenuously
and unfairly magnified in Mr. Johnson’s communications” O’Neill could charge
himself with been disingenuous as well! He boasted of how he visited the homes
of the people, “educated their children and was generally consulted when they
had any affairs of moment to transact41.” Did they consult him when
presented with decrees of eviction in order for him to explain the contents of
such documents? O’Neill by these apparently casual remarks wishes to discretely
suggest that he was of the people and for them whereas in reality he was in top
echelon of the petty local establishment. O’Neill sometimes repeated the same
statement in different letters, perhaps because some of his intended readers
might not have access to each issue of the paper.
O’Neill concluded with an
observation about Marks Kehoe “who remains in the quiet and undisturbed
possession of his farm and who had on many occasions those two years past
expressed his gratitude both to Lord Carew and the honourable Mr. Carew; this
he has lately repeated in the presence of more that 100 persons.” This
statement contradicts the estate agent Bill Farmar who in his account of
alleged evictions on the estate (reply to Johnson quoted above) indicated that
they had obtained decrees to evict him and that Kehoe had taken benefit of the
Insolvent Act to stay the eviction indefinitely. It is incredible that Marks
Kehoe would feel a sincere and heartfelt gratitude to Lord Carew; if he made
any such expression it would be an empty gesture or a ploy to curry their
favour.
The men of that era
had no qualms about taking a farm from which a neighbour was evicted. When
Charlie Roe was evicted from his farm at Knockstown John Cullen took it (he
later had a pub in Clonroche) and became embroiled in a crazy row with his
priest Fr. Dennis Doyle of Poulpeasty or Donard; a matter best explained by the
opening paragraph of John Cullen’s letter to the local media:
“ a letter written by the
Rev. Denis Doyle Donard in which it is stated among other charges equally false
that Charles Roe was not allowed either the timber of his house or all of his
manure but that both were carried away and appropriated to the use of John
Cullen, the present occupant of the land except a small part of the manure
previously sold by Roe to Dr. Stock for 8s42.” Cullen was accused of
not leaving as much of the timber from the house as would boil Roe’s supper.
Cullen answered the first
charge with this psuedo-legal blast:
“Now there are ten people
that are ready to swear that Doctor Stock had carried off to Rathfilane the
whole and entire manure belonging to said Roe and left none behind for any
other person to take away. The man employed by Dr. Stock for that purpose, is
also ready to swear that the whole of the manure consisted of about
twenty-eight loads and to the best of his judgment and reconciliation, he did
not leave one shovelfull behind, being desirous to perform his duty to the
purchaser.”
His answer to the second
charge was that he had taken the timber from Roe’s house because it was at risk
of rotting so:
“I brought it to my own
house—had it thrown in the yard but not for my own use.” Roe and his family
came the next day to collect it. I am not sure if Cullen is telling the truth
in regard to the timber. There are two astounding aspects to the story. It is
difficult to comprehend that anybody could attach such importance to a few
planks and a heap of farmyard manure—that indicates the sheer scarcity of
commodities of any kind and the lack of money to buy them. The other matter is
that despite his eviction Charlie Roe and his family was still about; we have
no indication as to how they survived—perhaps their neighbours gave them alms.
The taboo against taking evicted farms, a powerful force during the land wars
in the closing decades of the nineteenth century, does not seem to have
deterred men from taking such farms then. John Cullen became a wealthy and
respectable businessman in Clonroche later on.
The loose coalition of
Carew and Morgan broke apart, as the election of Mc Mahon became a probability;
it was assumed that the second seat was between Morgan, Carew and Nunn. As
things turned out, the sundering of the Liberal/ Catholic vote by four
candidates enabled Mr. George, with fairly solid Protestant support to take the
second seat. Young Carew was shouted down as he attempted to speak at the
nomination of candidates at Enniscorthy and besides he lacked a Parnellian
defiance of such a situation, to say the least! A passionate letter from Fr.
Tom Furlong, which he was unable to read out, then, was published in the local
papers; the greater part of it expressed his contempt and anger at receiving
and an anonymous placard:
“A few days ago I had, I
will not say the pleasure or gratification of receiving an anonymous placard,
in which the barbed arrows of calumny have been discharged in no unmeasured
manner against the Hon. Mr. Carew; but I trust they will fall pointless and
harmless! We should always suspect the patriotism of the man who writes under
false colours and lest the scribblers and dealers in atrocious slander should
make the slightest impression on any of the electors I will portray the Hon.
Mr. Carew’s character in a few words and this I can do with the fullest
confidence as I have more opportunity than many of knowing it.” He concluded
that Carew “is a gentleman of the strictest honour and integrity” and that he
“will, with the utmost confidence, stand sponsor to all his political opinions43.”
This letter was first published in the Wexford Independent on the third of
April 1852. The suspicion then was that supporters of the Conservative
candidates were distributing them.
Fr Furlong’s letter
repeats the mistake made by him throughout the campaign: his inability to
comprehend that while he as both a recipient of their largesse and the pastor
of the parish at the core of their estate would favour the Carews other people
outside the Carew estates might not feel similarly inclined. The indignities
suffered by him at the public meeting in Enniscorthy in late May did not bring
forth a massive wave of protest in his favour even from clerical colleagues.
Fr. Matthew Maylor of Kilmore a kinsman of the Fitzhenrys of Ballymackessy and
therefore of the Carews wrote of “a wanton and unworthy indignity upon the most
venerable and venerated priest in this diocese44.” A Fr. John
Furlong D.D. (possibly a relative) protested that “The rude and wanton affront
put on the respected Pastor of Killegney Rev. Thomas Furlong made a deep
impression on my mind45.”
In the event, Carew
secured a mere 1,300 votes, or thereabouts, from a total poll of circa 8,000; a
result that carried the implication that his candidature served only to split
the Catholic vote, thus enabling Mr. George to take the second seat The 1852
election, as a portent for the future, suggested that either a Protestant or a
landlord would find it difficult to secure election ever again for the County
Wexford
1.
Professor Daithi Hogan kindly invited me to look at
them.
2.
In the Wexford Library.
3.
The Wexford Independent the 10th of April
1852.
4.
The Wexford Conservative the 3rd of January
1834.
5.
Photocopies were kindly shown to me by Billy Sweetman.
6.
7.
The Wexford Independent the 19th of June
1952.
10. The Wexford Independent the 3rd of March 1852.
11. The Wexford Independent the 24th of March 1852.
12. The Wexford Independent the 3rd of March 1852.
13. The Wexford Independent the 24th of May 1852.
14. The Wexford Independent the 31st of March 1852.
15. The Wexford Independent the 10th of April 1852.
16. The Wexford Independent the 10th of April 1852.
17.The Wexford Independent the 1st of May 1852.
18. The Wexford Independent the 15th of May 1852.
19. The Wexford Independent the 12th of June 1852.
20.The Wexford Independent the 22nd of May 1852.
21.The Wexford Independent the
29th of May 1852
22
Ibid 21.
23
Ibid 21.
24
The Wexford Independent the 5th of June
1852.
25. The Wexford Independent the 29th of May 1852.
26. Ibid 25.
27. Ibid 25.
28. The Wexford Independent the 31st of March 1852.
29. The Wexford Independent the 5th of June 1852.
30. The Wexford Independent the 19th of June 1852.
31. The Wexford Independent the 23rd of June 1852.
32. The Wexford Independent the 30th of June 1852.
33. The Wexford Independent the 12th of June 1852.
34. The Wexford Independent the 12th of June 1852.
35. The Wexford Independent the 14th of July 1852.
36. The Wexford Independent the 26th of June 1852.
37. Ibid 36.
38. The Wexford Independent the 19th of June 1852.
39. The Wexford Independent the 26th of June 1852.
40. The Wexford Independent the 9th of June 1852.
41. The Wexford Independent the 9th of June 1852.
42. The Wexford Independent the 26th of May 1852.
43. The Wexford Independent the 21st of July 1852.
44. The Wexford Independent the 5th of June 1852.
45. The Wexford Independent the 16th of June 1852.
