Information is wanted of Thomas McNamara, of Glandree,

Genealogy, Archaeology, History, Heritage & Folklore

Moderators: Clare Support, Clare Past Mod

Jimbo
Posts: 591
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2013 9:43 am

Re: Information is wanted of Thomas McNamara, of Glandree,

Post by Jimbo » Wed Jun 26, 2019 4:54 am

Hi Sheila,

Thank you for providing the link to Burke’s Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Landed Gentry, it is interesting that both one son and grandson of Maccon MacNamara were named Sheedy MacNamara. I'm not so sure about your comment that the family history of James Dillon McNamara of Ayle will provide no help in solving the mystery of the missing Civil War soldier Thomas McNamara of Glandree.

And thanks for the conversion rate between Irish and English acres as well as between acres / roods / perches. I had seen "rood" and "perch" but never knew what they meant in relationship to acres. If my new understanding is correct, the lands of James McNamara at Ayle Upper were 22 perches shy of 140 acres.

With regards to the American newspaper article that you provided on the "Feakle Outrage" from Sharon's original posting, this provides an excellent example of why it is always good to obtain multiple sources. The British, as well as the Irish newspapers based out of Dublin, often reported the news out of distant County Clare incorrectly. Especially with the reporting of an "outrage" it appears that their correspondents were quick to make things up for a sensational headline. Often later reports would correct the initial mistaken reporting. American newspapers appear to have often copied the incorrect reporting coming out of England and Ireland. The Atlanta Constitution article of March 14th certainly had multiple mistakes:
This case is exactly similar to the shooting of farmer MORONEY a fortnight ago, when an armed party attacked his house, shot him through the legs, stabbed one of his sons, and shot another son.
This information appears to have been copied from the English papers, published only days after the Feakle attacks on the late Saturday evening of the 25th of February, such as the one below:
MURDER IN COUNTY CLARE
A Limerick telegram, received late last night, states that an armed party of 16 disguised men attacked a farmer's house at Feakle, co. Clare, on Sunday morning. Having procured a light, they dragged the farmer from his bed and shot him in the legs. The son, who had concealed himself under the bed, was dragged out and stabbed three times. A second son, who attempted to make his escape, was shot dead by some of the party who remained on guard outside. The farmer was suspected of having paid his rent, and hence the motive for the dreadful crime.

The Leeds Mercury, 28 February 1882
Mr. Moroney of Leighort in Feakle was indeed shot in the leg, but his sons were not injured. Michael Moroney and Catherine Doyle were married at Feakle in February 1870, their six children were all very young in 1882. Surely, Mrs. Catherine Moroney would have mentioned her own children being shot and stabbed when testifying at the inquest. The newspapers in their 1882 reporting confused two similar incidents that took place on the same night of the 25th of February, first at Cloonagro Townland and secondly at Leighort Townland. Both locations involved two farmers named James McNamara and Michael Moroney, so it's understandable that the newspapers were confused. However, nobody, in either location, was shot dead trying to escape.

With the next statement from the Atlanta Constitution article, I have no idea the source of their mistakes other than lazy journalism. There was certainly a lot of fake news coming out of Atlanta back then:
A farmer named CONNELL and his wife were shot in their legs at Feacle, County Clare, Saturday, and it is expected that they will die.
This incident had nothing to do with Feakle or even County Clare. More accurate information was reported in the English newspapers. See two articles below, which are slightly different. Was the farmer named Thomas or Timothy? Was an arrest made or not? However, we can be certain that the location was in County Kerry in a townland named Knockawinna, very close to the borders with County Cork to the south and east, and County Limerick to the north. Mr. Connell and his wife did not die from this attack (a few years later they would seek compensation and provide more detailed first person accounts).
At an early hour on Sunday morning a large party of armed and disguised men arrived at the house of a farmer named Thomas Connell, of Knockawinna, county Kerry, and broke in the door. Connell's wife, having come forward to expostulate with the marauders, was shot in the legs. The husband was then brought out and charged with having given private information to the police about the "no-rent" manifesto, was deliberately shot in the legs also. One arrest has been made.

The Bristol Mercury and Daily Post, 14 March 1882
On Saturday morning a party visited the house of Timothy Connell, of Knockawinera, near Brosna, who was suspected of having given information to the police. They shot both himself and his wife in the legs, wounding them both seriously. No arrests were made.

Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper, 19 March 1882

Jimbo
Posts: 591
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2013 9:43 am

Re: Information is wanted of Thomas McNamara, of Glandree,

Post by Jimbo » Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:45 am

Hi Sheila,

Thanks again for providing the link to the article "The Land War: A desperate duel between Parnell and Forster" by Ronnie O'Gorman in the Galway Advertiser:
https://www.advertiser.ie/galway/articl ... nd-forster

You highlighted that Michael Morony of Feakle was visited in Tulla Workhouse by William Forster, Chief Secretary for Ireland, on the night before Morony died. The next day, William Forster would visit Tullamore in King's County (County Offaly) and his speech would make reference to his visit with Mr. Moroney at the Tulla Workhouse Hospital, which, he stated would "stick with my memory for the rest of my life". "Mr. Forster's Tullamore Speech" was highly reported in the newspapers and created some controversy in British Parliament. The speech is very long, Mr. Forster was a Quaker, but I found it interesting enough to share in its entirety. Especially extraordinary was the interaction between the Chief Secretary and "A Voice" in the crowd (highlighted in blue).

Sheila, you also mentioned that in June 1883, at the opening of the new Tulla convent for the Sisters of Mercy, that the Tulla brass band struck up “God Save Ireland”. And that the band had been forbidden to play or even meet for the prior eighteen months - a time period including when the Chief Secretary of Ireland visited Tulla. Although in 1882 the song "God Save Ireland" was prohibited to be played by the Tulla brass band, William Forster would certainly make use of "God Save Ireland" in his speech at Tullamore:
MR. FORSTER, M.P., ON OUTRAGES AND THE SUSPECTS
(FROM OUR REPORTER)
Tullamore, Monday

Mr. Forster to-day addressed an assemblage of people from a hotel window in this town. He arrived from Portarlington at 11 o'clock, and was unaccompanied by any escort. Only his son, Mr. Arnold Forster, Mr. Blake, R.M., and his military secretary, Mr. Ross of Bladensberry came with him. ... [places he visited]... There was not the slightest hostile disposition exercised against the right hon. gentleman, but a very natural curiosity to behold so powerful a personage was excited. A crowd of the anxiously curious having "neared" the hotel, Mr. Forster appeared at one of the windows.

The Chief Secretary said - My friends, the last time I spoke out of a window of my room was in my own town of Bradford, and I remember the window came down upon me and caught my head. I see that they have kindly taken this window out. I see a great many of you here, and I should like, if you allow me, to say a few words to you. (Here a man in the crowd gave a deep groan.) Perhaps if you will wait until I have finished - I thought you would like to hear what I have to say - (hear, hear) - if at the end you wish to give me a good Irish cheer I shall be pleased, and if you think it your duty to give me a good Irish howl I shall bear it (laughter). Seeing you here I would like to say a word or two on why I have come down from Dublin into the country.

A Voice - And we admire your pluck.

Mr. Forster - I have been down in Limerick and in Clare and in Galway, and the reason why I came down was this - that I wanted to see whether, coming down for myself and seeing what the state of things was, would enable me to do my work better. Well, now, my work in this present moment is to prevent men from having outrages committed upon them, to prevent their being threatened and ill-treated when they are going through their daily work; to enable a man to earn a living as he so chooses, to earn it without being frightened by anybody else from doing that; and, above all, to prevent, and if possible, to put a stop to what is happening in many parts of Ireland - I hope not here, but I am afraid there have been one or two cases not far from here, to put a stop to what has been happening in other parts of Ireland, especially where I have been the last day or two, viz - these violent outrages, maiming and killing people because they have been doing what they had a perfect right to do, and in some cases because they had been doing what was their duty to do - paying their lawful debts - or even because they were suspected of it. Well, I wanted to see for myself whether the stories that came up to me in Dublin Castle were or were not exaggerated. I am sorry to say to a great extent I find them true. Now I want to tell you what is the fact that I take back with me to Dublin - that has made more impression on my mind than any other. It is this, that this state of things, this intimidation, this threatening, this inability of man to do what he has a right to do without being interfered with by other people, that would come to an end at once if the people in this district and in Ireland generally would unite together and say, "We don't choose to be threatened; we don't choose to be bullied; we will not allow any midnight marauders and ruffians to break into our homes in the middle of the night." You have it in your own power. I am not speaking to you individually, although it may be that some of you have it in your own power. The people of this district have it in their power to stop these outrages, which are a disgrace to the name of Ireland, and which, allow me to say, for I would not have come here to talk to you at all if I would not say before your faces precisely and exactly what I would say behind your backs in the Imperial House of Parliament - I have here today to say to you exactly what I would say to you there - namely this, that such things would not happen either in England or in Scotland, and I do not believe they would happen in any country on the Continent. There are no more courageous men in the world in battle, in discipline, than are the Irish -

A Voice - "Soft solder. Release the prisoners."

Mr. Forster - Perhaps you will wait until I have come to an end. I do not know why you should be angry, if you are, at my saying that you are courageous men; but perhaps if you are angry at that you will be pleased with what I will say to you now - that though there are no more courageous men in battle than the Irish, there is one want among the Irish people, and that is the want of moral courage - a want of determination to stand against a majority round them, or even a noisy or violent minority round them. I am not referring exactly to your district, for I do not know much about it; but I believe my observations might apply to places not far from here. Why are people put in terror? Why are they unable to pay their rents openly, instead of sending them in quiet, as I know is very often done, wishing it to be understood that no one is to know anything of it? It is not that they are afraid of a large majority as the country. It is not that the people who would commit these outrages among them are in very large numbers, but are small in number. They are broken-down men and violent and reckless boys who do it, and what I say is this: if you unite - I am not talking about the support of the English Government, I am talking about acting in your own self-defence and acting for your own protection - if you stood together and said - "We think that changes ought to be made in the laws, and we will go in a constitutional and legal way to make them, but we will not allow anyone to break in upon us and threaten and ill treat us, and will support the Government in stopping that -

A Voice - Release the suspects.

Mr. Forster - I go back to Dublin with the conviction more impressed on my mind than it was at first that this state of things, these outrages which are a disgrace to your country, would cease directly if you were to set to work yourselves and say not merely "We will do our duty and keep the law and order, but we will not allow ourselves to be ill treated."

[An individual who several times subsequently made passing observations, and who was the only one in the crowd that attempted an interruption, here said - "Has not the Coercion put it down?"]

Mr. Forster - The question really is, do you yourselves wish to put it down? Do you like men to creak in the middle of the night and pull innocent men out of their beds and maim, shoot, and kill them? Do you like men to come and interfere with you, and stand between you and the men to whom you owe money - be they landlords or shopkeepers - and say, you shall not pay your debts? I don't believe you like that. A great many of you, I know, must feel that it is doing great harm - that it is interfering with your employment, and that no good can come out of it. If that is the case, I say, help the Government to prevent these outrages; but whether you do or not, it is our duty to stop them. That is the duty of the Government, and it is especially my duty. And stop them we will. There may be somebody here - I hope not - who may have looked at any rate upon these outrages without disapproval - may possibly have had something to do with approving them or instigating them. If there are such people present I want to say to them that the law-breakers, the outrage-mongers, the instigators to outrage have got several powers to contend with. They have got the Irish Government - though perhaps they think they can defy that; they have got the Imperial Government; they have got the people of Great Britain, who are determined that these outrages shall cease; and they have got a stronger force against them than the Irish Government or Parliament or the British people - they have got against them the force of God's laws, which say that the man who tries to injure his neighbour, and who, because that neighbour does not do what he wishes or because he thinks that he may make some miserable sum of money out of what that many might be made to do, will come in upon him -

A Voice - "That is the landlord."

Mr. Forster - There may be bad landlords; but, though there may be bad landlords in some places, that does not make it a good thing for men to burn down houses, to ruin people in their trade, to torture animals, to break into houses in the night, to maim people and to kill them.

A Voice - Who did that but the soldiers and the police?

Mr. Forster, continuing - I want to say a word or two about myself. I have told you that we are determined - and that I am determined - that we shall have law and order in Ireland, and that these outrages shall cease (hear, hear). I wish to say something of my experience in Ireland. A good many of you have heard things not very nice about me (laughter), and I dare say some of you in your hearts don't think well of me. (A Voice - "We don't.") Well, we will leave that alone. I would rather you thought well of me, but if you think ill of me, what matters to me is that God and my own conscience should think well of me. Therefore, we will leave every other estimate to take care of itself. A good many years ago I came to Ireland. I came here having heard a good deal of Ireland before I saw Ireland in the agony of its worse distress. What I heard at the time of the famine impressed me with the strong conviction that if ever I had to do with the government of the country, or with the law making for the country, I would do my utmost to help those who would put the relation of landlord and tenant in Ireland in a better condition than it has been. I saw at that time of the famine the misery and starvation, which were worse in the West of Ireland where I was than it was here. I think some of the oldest people I am addressing can remember it. There were some signs of it even in this county. I felt convinced that that resulted very much from the very bad state of the land laws, and from the bad condition of the relations between landlord and tenant. And there I am not blaming any individual landlords, I think that they did very much like others would have done under the circumstances - some of them a great deal better than what the majority of men would have done. I dare say there is not a man here who thinks ill even of the landlords for what they did then - still more, who thinks ill of what they do now - who, if he were but in the same circumstances, would not be very likely to do the same (hear, hear). I was determined to do what I could, after seeing the misery in the West, to get an alteration in the laws, and all of you will acknowledge that we have now got two boons, as I may say. I will not call them boons - but two acts of justice, which three or four years ago you did not expect to get. One is that we have men going through the country everywhere who are saying what a fair rent is to be, and in very many cases largely lowering the rent; and the other thing is that that want of security which the farmers in past years (and I dare say some of you are farmers) felt no longer exists. It was the case that when a man tried to improve his farm he had no guarantee that he would get the fruit of his own labour. That is not the case now, nor will it be in the future, for that danger and that injustice is taken away from the Irish farmer. Well, I rejoice to see that that has happened, and I believe that in five years' time - perhaps shorter - possibly longer - but I should say at any rate in five years' time it will be acknowledged through Ireland that the Land Act has made great and most beneficial change in the greatest industry of Ireland, which is the industry of agriculture (slight interruption). Perhaps you will wait until I finish. That was the experience I got when I was here, a young man, before many of you were born. And what has made me thankful is that the time has come at which we have these laws changed, and greatly changed for the better. And now I have got another experience. It has been my hard fate for many months, morning after morning, to read tales of dreadful outrages and of cattle maiming -

A Voice - "Were there no evictions?"

Mr. Forster - I am very glad to find that in the King's County there has been no case of cattle maiming this year. There have been in other places. It has been my fate to read morning after morning of desperate threats, of intimidation, of men being ruined in their trade because they were doing what they had a right to do, or even because they were doing what it was their duty to do, and, worse than that, men are being pulled out of their beds, and being maimed and being murdered. I determined on going down myself to see whether it was as bad as I heard in Dublin Castle. I don't deny there may be exaggeration, but I am sorry to say that, putting all the facts together, I don't think we have heard more in Dublin as to the outrages, the terrible outrages, and cruel outrages than they really are. I have just come back from Clare, and I will tell you what I saw there. It will stick with my memory for the rest of my life. I have done all I can to make it unlikely, to make it difficult, that there should be evictions in the future, and I will do what I can to make it difficult that that shall happen again which happened in Clare, which I almost saw happen within the last three of four days. I went when I was a Tulla to the workhouse, and there I saw a poor fellow lying in bed, the doctors round him, with a blue light over his face that made me feel that the doctors were not right when they told me that he might get over it. I felt sure that he must die, and I see that this morning he has died. But why did that man die? He was a poor, lone farmer. I believe that he paid his rent - I believe that he had committed that crime - he thought it was his duty to pay. Fifteen or 16 men broke into his house in the middle of the night, pulled him out of his bed, and told him that they would punish him. He himself, lying in his death agony as it were, told me the story. He said, "My wife went down on her knees, and said, 'Here are five helpless children, will you kill their father?' " They took him out; they discharged a gun filled with shot into his leg so closely that it shattered his leg. Perhaps they did not mean to kill him - they must have known that they meant to maim him for life - they must have known that they meant to make it impossible for him to earn his living, and to give him days and weeks of agony. I may charitably hope that they did not quite know that they would kill him. Well, I will say that that is a state of things that so coming on what I have heard will dwell with me all the rest of my life, and if I can do anything to prevent these things happening, whatever hard opinion you may think of me or say of me, the time will come when the Irish people will be thankful that they were stopped. But I call on you to do what you can to stop these things. Join any constitutional agitation for any change you like, but do try, for the honour of Ireland, for that feeling of patriotism which I believe you have strong with you, to wipe off this disgrace from her name. Let me tell you one word about the English people. There is no ill-feeling in England towards Ireland. We know well that you have been a miserable country, that you have been a badly governed country; that the English Government in past days has done many very cruel and very unjust things to Ireland (hear, hear), and allowed many things to be done. We wish to undo that: we wish to make you prosper; we wish to make you as rich and as powerful as we are ourselves. But when we have these terrible outrages coming before us we hardly know what to do; we hardly know how we can carry out our good feelings and our good wishes to you. Now, I am very much obliged to you for hearing me so patiently. I know I must have said things that very many of you must dislike.

A Voice - Very few.

Mr. Forster - When leaving London, they told me, "Don't go into the country; don't go away from Dublin; you will not be safe." (Slight interruption.) Let us remember that two cannot speak at one time (hear, hear). They told me it would not be safe to go about in Ireland.

A Voice - Who said that?

Mr. Forster - A good many people. The first place I went to I had a good lot of police with me. Since then I have done without them. They also told me coming over that I should not be heard, for I would say what I thought. Well, I have been heard, and I am very much obliged to you. I have very little more to say, but I will just end with three words - words with which I have seen by reading the newspapers many speeches in many towns in Ireland have ended, and words with which many letters that I receive end - "God Save Ireland" (cheers).

A Voice - Is that from your heart? Why not let out the suspects !

Mr. Forster - Sometimes when I have read a letter telling me that I must have a bullet through my head, or that I must go to a place that is rather warmer than we are in now (laughter), I regret to find that it is signed, "God Save Ireland." I have, as I said, read many speeches with that expression at the end; and I have said, "Yes, God save Ireland," too, but "God save Ireland" from the man who made that speech (laughter). However you may be sure that that is the feeling which the Government has, which Mr. Gladstone has, and which, if you will allow me to say, I have. God save Ireland from enemies outside her borders and from those within - God save Ireland from cruel men, of whatever class they be - and I trust there are very few - grasping landlords or rack-renting landlords, or be they dishonest tenants or midnight marauders. God save Ireland from pestilence that walketh at noon and terror that stealeth at night. And I believe that God will save Ireland, for, with all her faults, there is that amount of virtue amongst the Irish people - there is that love of country, that love and devotion of men to their families - that willingness to sacrifice for them, which are abiding and homely virtues that do much to save a country, and to enable God's laws to be respected. And with the earnest desire that God may save Ireland, I thank you for having heard me (applause).

A Voice - What about the prisoners? Let out the suspects.

Mr. Forster - Well, now, you ask about the suspects (hear, hear). As soon as we can fairly say that outrages have ceased in Ireland, and that men are not ruined, are not maimed, and are not murdered for doing their duty, or doing what they have a legal right to do, the suspects will be released.

Mr. Forster then retired, and the people dispersed. The Chief Secretary returned to Dublin by six o'clock.

The Freeman's Journal, Dublin, 7 March 1882

Sduddy
Posts: 1826
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 10:07 am

Re: Information is wanted of Thomas McNamara, of Glandree,

Post by Sduddy » Sun Jun 30, 2019 10:09 am

Hi Jim

Good work showing how much incidents were exaggerated – as if they were not newsworthy enough already. Good work finding those Connells on the Cork-Kerry border – a long way from Leighort.

Thanks also for Mr. Forster’s speech. I wonder if the “voice” was a member of the I.R.B. (our old Fenian friends from the first page of this many-stranded thread). The Land League was infiltrated by the I.R.B. and, although activities cannot be pinned to any particular individual (being a secret organization), moonlighting activities are often associated with the I.R.B; for more on this (in Co. Clare), read Chapter Three (pp 91-126) of “Peasants into Patriots Instruments of Radical Politicisation in Clare 1800-1907”, by C. Maguire : https://dspace.mic.ul.ie/handle/10395/1024.

In that chapter, on p 98, the author says,
According to the authorities, the IRB in Clare was completely organised during the Land League campaign and although its members were not planning any immediate outbreak, "they were determined to intimidate tenants [who pay their rent] in every possible way‟ [footnote 35:CSORP. 1882. 19433]. Secret society activity was particularly active in the east Clare towns of Tulla and Scariff, where eighteen identified IRB men (some of whom were centres in their respective districts) were responsible for orchestrating a system of intimidation against those paying rent in the district and for organising the firing on police night patrols [footnote 36: C.S.O.R.P., 1882. 19433; CSORP, 1882. 20193]
There may have been quite a few tenants who secretly paid rent during the Land War and during the Plan of Campaign; in the course of the Parnell Commission 1888-1889, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parnell_Commission), a Mrs. Blake, whose estate was in Connemara, Co. Galway, gave evidence of payment of rent; here is quote from a transcript of the proceedings of the inquiry: https://archive.org/stream/diaryofparne ... h_djvu.txt
Everybody who was in court will long remember Mrs. Blake. She is a brave, clever lady, as clever as any Q.C. in the place ; she has confounded Mr. J. G. Biggar, M.P., and brought Sir James Hannen and Sir Charles Russell into sharp collision — that for an anxious moment or two looked as if it would end in a " scene." But we are anticipating. Mrs. Blake's estate in Connemara contained four to five thousand acres. Up to the time when the Land League agitation began, Mrs. Blake and her tenants were, so she said, on the best of terms. They went in and out of her house like friends, she knew their circumstances, she helped them when they required help. Then "the agitation came," and tenants began to withhold rent payment, not because they had no money, but because they dared not pay. With very few interruptions from Mr. Murphy, Q-C, who was examining, Mrs. Blake gave her story in a clear, connected manner, with perfect self-possession, and with a tone and gesture indicating resolution and strength of character. There were vivid touches in her story, as when she described how one tenant came secretly to pay his rent, the rent being concealed in his son's sleeve. The receipt was " sewn up the boy's sleeve," in order to prevent discovery outside. Another rent-bearing tenant had to be dragged in through the window, so that he might not be seen by Mrs. Blake's own servants. She told in great detail how some of her tenants, known to have paid her, were punished by the maim- ing of their cattle and the destruction of their property. As she described the condition in which she found a poor bullock, she set her lips firmly together and brought her closed right hand with a sharp pat down upon the desk. It was in one of these emphatic moments that Mrs. Blake contrived to bring about the collision above named. She was about to describe an outrage, on second or third hand authority — that of her herd — when Sir Charles Russell, impatiently starting to his feet, protested that "evidence" of that description was inadmissible. But the President observed that it was the herd's duty to report the outrage to his employer, and such report was certainly admissible ; besides, its value could be tested in cross-examination. But Sir Charles was implacable. He held that if such evidence was allowed to be put in, this could not be called a "judicial investigation." Sir James frowned. "That's not the proper obser- vation to make," he said. After a pause the dispute was renewed, Sir James Hannen at last declaring, with an emphatic calmness, that " You (Sir Charles Russell) have expressed yourself in a most disrespectful manner." A minute later, and he remarked, in the same tone of quiet severity — " Somebody must have the last word, and I think it is L" Trying to find out whether it was political "agitation," or misery, that caused these outrages on Mrs. Blake's estate, Mr. Lockwood questioned her closely as to the condition of her tenantry. There was no exceptional distress, according to Mrs. Blake's testimony. " Why," said she, with one of her resolute looks, "a cry of distress will produce distress." Mr. Lockwood, upset for a moment by the enunciation of such a doctrine, brought out his political economy. If, as you say, potatoes fetched high prices, was not that because they were scarce ? But Mrs. Blake gave the testimony of her own eyes, to the effect that potatoes were not scarce. And she subsequently ex- plained her doctrine of the distress cry in this wise — that if you can manage to get up the cry, the tradespeople will stop credit, thereby compelling the poorest to sell out their necessaries of existence. " Clever woman," the whisper went round. She was.

26 Friday] Diary of [Nov. g.

Then Mr. Biggar jumped up to see what ke could do. If he could show that the Land Court reduced her rent-income a long way below the old figure, he would, he thought, prove grievous distress on her estate — in spite of her theory of distress cries. He took his plunge like a man, and the next moment looked as if he wished himself a hundred miles away. For Mrs. Blake at once entered upon a long and most interesting story — rendered somewhat fas- cinating by the narrator's manner — of how she anticipated the action of the Land League, and by a method so satisfactory to the tenants, that only twenty or so of the two or three hundred entered the Commissioners' Court. But while she described her method — devised by herself and conducted by herself throughout — Mr. Biggar had to stand stockstill. Instead of putting knowing questions, there he was listening to a long discourse. He was done for. "What's your income now?" he struck in at last, in sheer desperation. " Don't know." " Do you swear you don't know ? " and he wagged his fore- finger. The more Mr. Biggar wagged his finger and the more he challenged her to swear, the more Mrs. Blake laughed. She was mightily amused. This sort of thing went on for a minute or two. Then Mr. Biggar paused. He appeared to be tapping with his finger on Mr. Edward Harrington's cranium, as if in search of a new idea there, having exhausted his own stock. The idea came, and he rattled it forth in his rapid manner, " If you don't know whether it is above or below a thousand, can't you tell us what you think?" " I assure you I do not know," and on the battle went, Mrs. Blake laughing, Mr. Biggar white and excited, and wagging his forefinger, and challenging her to " swear."
Mrs. Blake was followed into the witness-box by her son, by one of her tenants, and by one of her herds — a stolid, healthy, garrulous, and incoherent Connemara " boy," who said he was seventy, though he would pass any day for forty. The herd warmed up to his countryman, Mr. T. Harrington, who questioned him about the condition of the district in 1879, the year of the Land League. His account of it was much less favourable than that given by his mistress ; for he declared that 1878-9 was the worst year since the famine of 1847-8 ! He also denied that he had ever heard any of his mistrc'^s's tenants confess they could pay if they liked. On the Land League his mind was a blank.
Jim, here is a song which mentions Tulla. It is sung by John Lyons, a Corkman, who lived for some years in England and Wales, and who came to live in Clare in 1961: http://www.clarelibrary.ie/eolas/coclar ... jlyons.htm
But I am not sure what period exactly it refers to. The Land League (Irish National Land League), which was founded in 1879, was replaced by the Irish National League (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_National_League), which was much more constitutional in its aims. But the Land War is a larger thing, which encompasses both of those, beginning much earlier and, in Clare especially, going on well into the 20th century.

Sheila

Jimbo
Posts: 591
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2013 9:43 am

Re: Information is wanted of Thomas McNamara, of Glandree,

Post by Jimbo » Thu Jul 04, 2019 6:41 am

Hi Sheila,

Very doubtful that "The Voice" in the crowd at Mr. Forster's Tullamore speech was a member of the Irish Republican Brotherhood, as you suggested. There was lots of discussion in Parliament with regards to the speech. One Irish MP, a Mr. Sexton, stated that he would not comment on the speech "beyond remarking that it was exceedingly easy for a man who had thrown into jail every person that could answer him (hear, hear), who had put his fingers upon the throat of the country and a gag into its mouth, to appear at a hotel window, surrounded by bayonets and detectives, and to deliver to a crowd of people assembled in a market place, a speech beginning with a dull jest, proceeding to mean threat, and finishing up in true English fashion with a good round text of Scripture (laughter and Irish cheers). It was exceedingly easy for the right hon. gentleman to do these things, because he well knew that any man in that crowd who dared say a syllable while he was delivering his studied eloquence would find himself after a day or two in Kilmainham or some other jail (hear, hear)". The Chief Secretary would deny any such police protection while he was at Tullamore. It was the specific denial when questioned by another Irish MP, a Mr. Redmond, that led "The Voice" to dispute Forster's account by writing to the Editor of the Freeman's Journal, and thereby we learn of his identity:
HOUSE OF COMMONS - LAST NIGHT
PETITIONS FROM IRELAND

Mr. REDMOND ....He did not disagree with the statement of the hon member for Galway that too much importance had been attached to the Chief Secretary's speech at Tullamore. He carefully perused that speech, and neither in the character of its eloquence nor in the matter it contained did it repay him the trouble. He was greatly inclined to ask the right hon gentleman what proportion did the detectives and the police in disguise bear to the number of the crowd he addressed.

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND -
To the best of my belief none (Ministerial cheers).

The Freemans Journal, Dublin, 11 March 1882
MR. FORSTER IN TULLAMORE
TO THE EDITOR OF THE FREEMAN
Tullamore, March 11th

Dear Sir - I have just seen in your issue of today the report of the debate in Parliament on the arrest of Mr. James Rourke [Coercion Suspect #864, from Dublin], and I notice that the Chief Secretary appears, from his reply to Mr. Redmond, to have been oblivious of the fact that quite patent to everyone else, that during his address in Tullamore both military and police were present in large numbers, the latter both in uniform and in plain clothes. In fact I was the recipient of the polite attentions of the latter. I had the hardihood to cry out "the suspects should be released," when immediately a constable in uniform and a policeman in plain clothes placed themselves on either side of me. The latter addressed me in a menacing tone, and threatened me that if "I did not keep quiet and conduct myself", no doubt according to his ideas of polite deportment, I would be "put up," meaning I would be again arrested as a suspect. Having asserted my right to make any observation within the law that I thought proper, this policeman gave me in charge to the constable, telling him to "make a note" of any remarks I might make. I then discovered he was a sub-inspector of the police. How the Chief Secretary could be unaware of the fact that there were policemen present, seeing that their spiked helmets were most conspicuous objects, bristling over the heads of the people, passes my comprehension. Trusting that I have let in a little light of the means adopted to ensure a hearing for Mr. Forster, I am, &c.,

HENRY EGAN, late Suspect

The Freeman's Journal, Dublin, 13 March 1882
THE CHIEF SECRETARY AT TULLAMORE

Mr. O'DONNELL asked the Chief Secretary whether his attention had been drawn to the complaint of Mr. Henry Egan in a letter in the "Freeman's Journal" of Monday, that for saying "release the suspects" in the course of the right hon. gentleman's speech at Tullamore he was threatened with arrest by a sub-inspector and policeman in attendance, and was put under the supervision of a policeman during the remainder of the speech, and whether the alleged conduct of the police on the occasion is approved by the Government.

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND said ... With regard to the question of the hon. member from Dungarvan, he saw in the "Freeman's Journal" the letter which the hon. member had quoted. Directly he saw it he communicated with the sub-inspector of Tullamore, who had written a letter reporting, as he expected, that it would have been contrary to his order if anything but what appeared in the report had taken place. The report stated it was not true that military police were present in large numbers. A constable and a couple of men were on duty as usual in the town. He had reason to believe that one man attended not from his orders, but came out of curiosity to hear what he had to say. The military were not employed in any way; no soldiers were present except one dragoon and two infantry officers who came to hear him. No man was there in plainclothes - he meant no detective was present. The sub-inspector who was present was not in his uniform, but attended because he rather wished to hear what he (the Chief Secretary) had to say (hear, hear). It would be for his benefit to do so. With reference to Mr. Egan the information he had was that he came out of his shop and shouted several times in an angry manner and with a loud voice (hear, hear, from the Irish members). He was evidently speaking for the purpose of exciting those who were attentively listening (oh, from Irish members, and hear, hear, from the Ministerial benches). The sub-inspector told him to calm himself, and some words passed between them. The sub-inspector did not give him in charge, but ordered Patrick Egan, his brother, to take him away, seeing that was no place for him. Those about wished to hear him (the Chief Secretary), but Mr. Egan did not. The sub-inspector in his report said there was no further interruption, and that he was heard with good humour and attention. He walked about the town unprotected by a single policeman....[next topic}...

The Freeman's Journal, Dublin, 17 March 1882
MR. FORSTER'S TULLAMORE SPEECH
TO THE EDITOR OF THE FREEMAN
Tullamore, 17th March

Dear Sir - In his reply to Mr. O'Donnell's question in the House of Commons last night your issue of to-day reports the Chief Secretary to have said -

The sub-inspector did not give him (Mr Henry Egan) in charge, but ordered Patrick Egan, his brother, to take him away, &c.

I wish to say that this is quite incorrect, as the sub-inspector did not speak to me at all on the occasion. Again, in reply to Mr. Sexton's speech, the Chief Secretary, from your report, is made to say-

What happened in the case of Mr Egan was this - the sub-inspector saw him interrupting and asked him not to interrupt. The sub-inspector then left him, and his brother came and took him away.


This is also incorrect, as I did not take my brother away.

PATRICK EGAN

The Freeman's Journal, Dublin, 18 March 1882
Henry Egan, from Tullamore, was Coercion Suspect #240, arrested on 17 October 1881, and sent to Naas Prison, as reported on the Coercion report to the House of Commons as of March 1882 (see below link). Three men from Tullamore were arrested on the same day, "Mr. Henry Egan, T C, Tullamore, of the firm of Messrs P and H Egan; Mr. James Lynam, P L G, Land League organiser for the King's County, Queen's County, and Westmeath; and Mr. Patrick J. White, merchant, Clara, were arrested under the Coercion Act. The annual meeting of the Town Council was held in the afternoon when Mr. Egan was elected chairman for the year". (The Freeman's Journal, 18 October 1881). His release date, as of the below 31 March 1882 report, states "ditto" which would mean that he was "still in custody", the same as James Lynam [#239]. But in fact, as a MP would later point out the error, his actual release date was more likely to have been 29 November 1881, the same as Patrick White [#238]. Hence, Henry Egan was free at the time of Mr. Forster's speech at Tullamore to leave his shop and cry out "the suspects should be released" in support of his fellow Coercion suspects still in jail.

http://www.dippam.ac.uk/eppi/documents/ ... age/455261

Was curious about this Henry Egan and his brother Patrick Egan, of the firm "P and H Egan", as they seemed quite prominent in the town of Tullamore. In the 1901 Census, in House 1 on Charleville Street, in Tullamore are five sons of Patrick Egan; the eldest son Patrick J has the occupation of "Brewer" and second eldest Henry J was a "Solicitor". Their father Patrick Egan died in 1897; his brother Henry Egan was the informant. Could not find Henry Egan in 1901, but in 1911 the 63 year old widower Henry Egan is a "JP Retired Merchant" living at House 38 on High Street. His son, James F, is a "Manager Wholesale Wine and Spirit Business".

http://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/p ... t/1471880/
http://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/p ... et/561652/

A google search led to two interesting articles about the firm of "P and H Egan" on the Offaly History Blog written by David Egan (April 2017) and Michael Byrne (May 2019) - see links below. May 2019 was the 100th anniversary of the death of Henry Egan. Both articles have great photos of the Egan family and various "P and H Egan" businesses in Tullamore. The Egan whiskey brand has also been revived recently and has a website including family history - see below link. The articles all mention Henry Egan as a Coercion suspect, but none mention his being "The Voice" in the crowd who bravely protested during the speech of the Chief Secretary of Ireland by yelling "release the suspects", and afterwards by writing a letter to the Freeman's Journal.

Absolutely fascinating this connection between Mr. Henry Egan's protesting a speech made by Mr. Forster, Chief Secretary, whose visit to Ireland was necessitated in part due to outrages in Tulla and Feakle, including the tragic death of Mr. Michael Moroney of Feakle at the Tulla Workhouse, whose shooting the young Thomas McNamara of Glandree was one of a number of Coercion suspects, or at least due to the timing and nature of the charge, we have good to reason to believe so. Thomas McNamara (1862 - 1925), the Coercion Suspect, and his father Thomas McNamara (1825 or 1829 - 1915) of Glandree are likely closely related to Thomas McNamara, the missing Civil War soldier of Glandree, and his sisters Mary McNamara Madigan of Barnsley, Yorkshire, and Elizabeth McNamara Hornbeck of Wawarsing, New York. This connection has not yet been proven, but I reckon with each new clue we are getting closer to solving the mystery.

https://offalyhistoryblog.wordpress.com ... avid-egan/

https://offalyhistoryblog.wordpress.com ... ael-byrne/

https://www.eganswhiskey.com/legacy.html

P H Egan Ltd of Tullamore, Irish Whiskey.jpg
P H Egan Ltd of Tullamore, Irish Whiskey.jpg (116.62 KiB) Viewed 30935 times

Jimbo
Posts: 591
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2013 9:43 am

Re: Information is wanted of Thomas McNamara, of Glandree,

Post by Jimbo » Thu Jul 11, 2019 5:50 am

With the speech by Mr. William Forster, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, much focus was on the level of police protection given him at Tullamore and elsewhere on his trip. Instead of being "courageous" it would have actually been quite foolish for a Chief Secretary for Ireland to go without police protection. William Forster resigned on 2 May 1882 due to his disagreement over the Kilmainham Treaty agreed upon between the British PM Gladstone and Charles Stuart Parnell. Just four days later, the new Chief Secretary for Ireland, Lord Frederick Cavendish, was assassinated at Phoenix Park in Dublin on 6 May 1882. The Times newspaper, through a forged letter, would attempt to place the blame for the Phoenix Park murders on Charles Stuart Parnell. The "Times Commission", later known as the "Parnell Commission", would investigate these claims with hearings in London over 128 days between September 1888 and November 1889.

The murder of Michael Moroney of Feakle would be described in the opening statement of the Attorney General, Sir Richard Webster, on the second day of the Parnell Commission. Brought to London from County Clare to testify regarding the murder of Michael Moroney, and conditions in County Clare in general, were three men: (1) Charles William Perry of Tulla, the land agent for Thomas Brady Browne of New Grove; (2) Michael Moroney, of Clonagroo, Caher-Feakle; (3) the Reverend Charles Stuart, curate of Milton Malbay. Their testimony clarifies that two men named Michael Moroney were attacked on the same evening. Through the testimony of the three witnesses, none of which was terribly forthcoming, we can get a better picture of what occurred in Feakle on the night of 25 February 1882.
THE COMMISSION ON THE "TIME'S" CHARGES.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S ADDRESS CONTINUED
SECOND DAY - TUESDAY, OCT. 23 [1888]
LONDON

THE CLARE OUTRAGES


I now (said the Attorney General) come to the particulars of the Clare outrages. Prior to September 1880, and prior to the Ennis speech [by Parnell] to which I have already referred, Clare was in quite a normal condition and comparatively, if not quite free from agrarian crime. Very shortly afterwards the ordinary police had to be increased from 327 to 600 men, and between February, 1881, and January, 1882, a period of 11 months, there were six murders and twelve attempts at assassination. From January, 1882, to November, 1883, there were six attempted assassinations, but fortunately during the latter part of that time the Crimes Act was in operation. It was one of the first counties proclaimed under the Crimes Act and which felt the salutary effect of the measure.

... [descriptions of several shootings in Clare]...

There are other instances of firing and shooting in the end of 1881, but not of sufficiently characteristic features to make it necessary to mention them. I wish, however, to mention the case of a man named Perry, which runs over the years 1881 and 1882,. This case is connected also with the murder of a man named Michael Moroney, which took place on 25th Feb, 1882. Perry was [the agent for] a landlord [named Browne] who had been on perfectly good terms with his people, but in the early part of 1881, he could not get any rent, and accordingly, acting partly for himself and partly for other persons, took some steps to issue processes to recover some rent. On the 27th March 1881, his house [Charles Perry's] was fired into. On the 10th of April, 1881, a Land League meeting was held at Feakle, near the place where Mr. Browne, who was one of the persons whom Perry was agent for, happened to have property, and at a meeting in the month of May land-grabbers were denounced. In the month of January, 1882, these notices were circulated about Perry:

"Boycott Perry - Have nothing to do with Perry, or by the Immaculate Jesus I will cripple him. Beware of Moonlight or his body will burst up. Boycott Perry. Pay no rent. Any person having anything whatsoever to do with the infernal sceptical ruffian Perry will have the contents of the captain's brainbreaker. Any person buying or working for Perry or bastard Browne I declare myself before Christ I will make his blood flow before no distant date."

On the 10th February a notice of a similar character was posted. In the month of January, 1882, one of the Lady Land League organisers, Miss M'Cormick, was travelling through the district and advising the people to pay no rent. In the early part of that year Michael Moroney did pay rent, and on the 25th February, 1882, Moroney was fired at and wounded, and he died within seven or eight days. Another man of the same name in the same neighborhood was stabbed in the legs because he would not answer the question whether or not he had paid his rent, and five or six other men were all threatened with violence because they had paid, or were suspected to have paid, their rent. ...

... [Attorney General continued with shooting in other counties]...

Freeman's Journal, Dublin, 24 October 1888
THE SPECIAL COMMISSION
ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE, Dec 14 [1888]

The Special Commission held their 31st sitting today at half-past 10 o'clock...

The next witness was Charles William Perry, who was examined by Mr. ATKINSON. Witness said, I am the agent of Mr. Thomas Brown, of New Grove, county Clare. In 1881 a body of tenants came to me about paying rent. That was about September, 1881. There were no processes served at the time. They did not at that time make any demand of me in reference to their rents. I was obliged to take proceedings at the end of 1881 in consequence of their not paying on account of the "No-rent" manifesto. Shortly after that they came to me in a body in reference to that demand. They said they could not pay their rent at that time. I cannot remember the reason; I think it was because of the "No-rent" manifesto. I remember a number of men came, and two men of the name Moroney separated themselves from the others and came to the office. They were Michael and William Moroney.

Were there more than two? - Another man came too - his name was Kenny.
Was that Michael Moroney subsequently murdered? He was, some months afterwards.

MR. JUSTICE A. L. SMITH - When Moroney separated himself from the others what did he do?
The Witness. - He paid his rent.

Examination continued by MR. ATKINSON. - Several others paid their rent. The second Moroney lived in the same townland. In 1884 the lease of the house formerly held by Conheedy fell in. I refused to make a new letting to Conheedy, and he was turned out. I let that house to a man of the name of Macnamara. He was a tenant in occupation at the time and a sub-tenant of Conheedy when the lease fell in. I cannot say that Macnamara showed me any resolutions of the Tulla Land League. I and Macnamara went before the Tulla Land League about the year 1885. We did not go into the room, we remained outside. It was known that we were there. No communication was made to us by any of the members as to what was done inside. I did not ascertain what had taken place, nor did any of the members of the Land League say anything as to whether we should be admitted or not. We left after going there because we understood that they would not hear us.

At this time had you two men named Halloran and Neyland in your employment? - Yes.

Did they leave you immediately afterwards? - Not immediately, but some time afterwards. They said they were visited by a party of men, and then they left. I was boycotted, and men refused to work for me.

With regard to this house at Tulla, was Macnamara in possession? - He was obliged to leave in 1886.

Did you then let Conheedy take it, and did all troubles then cease? - Yes.

Cross-examined my SIR C. RUSSELL. -With reference to the Conheedy case, you know that he had paid a fine for getting the remnant of the lease? - Yes.

And that his complaint was that, having paid a fine, you would not allow him to have the benefit of the fine, but put somebody else in? - Yes.

Whether rightly or wrongly, that was the origin of the bad feeling? - Yes.

With reference to Moroney, I would like to ask you, was there, as far as you are aware, any kind of dispute between him and the League? - No.

Are you aware that the murder was one that was reprobated and condemned in the neighbourhood? - I could not say it was.

Are you a Catholic? - I am.
is Father [Charles] Stuart, your parish priest? - He is the curate, not of my parish, but the next one; Moroney's parish.

Did you learn that he had strongly denounced that occurrence from the altar? - No, I am not aware of it.

Do you know that friends visited the family and showed their sympathy in the ordinary way by attending the funeral? - Yes.

The tenants came in a body in 1881 and asked for a reduction? - No; my fancy was that it was in consequence of the No-rent manifesto that they refused to pay; I do not remember that they asked for a reduction. We gave no reduction for three years after.

You remember the bad seasons of 1878 and 1879? - Yes; I was an agent at the time. We were not asked for an abatement in 1879, and none were given in 1880. In 1881 there were a few cases.

What was the reduction that was given then? - 10 to 15 per cent.
On that gale? - Yes.
That is on the half-year's rent? - Yes.
Was that the only reduction made? - Yes, until 1885.
When the Land Courts were in full swing? - Yes.

What has been the total reduction made, either by consent or in Court? - About 20 per cent, on our property.

By Mr. Davitt. - With respect to Macnamara, who you say was boycotted, was he arrested in 1879? - No, there was a Macnamara arrested; I am not aware whether it was he.

Are you aware it was not? - No.
Was there not some jealousy between him and Halloran? Did you know of any ill-feeling between them? - No.

Did you know whether he [MacNamara] gave boys drink to put up threatening notices at Tulla? - I do not know; I am not aware.

Re-examined by SIR H. JAMES. - You say that Conheedy paid money for the remnant of the lease, and you did not let him in, what was your reason? - Where at tenant was in occupation of the house he was the proper party to recognize after the expiration of the lease.

That was Macnamara? - Yes; I offered Conheedy the money he was at a loss, but he refused it.
________________________

Michael Moroney was then called and examined by MR. ATKINSON. The witness's answers were very voluble, and somewhat indistinct. He said: I live at Cloonagro. I knew my namesake Michael Moroney, who was murdered. I remember the tenants going to Mr. Brown some time before Moroney was murdered. I was among them.

Do you remember two or three turning back? - Yes, There was a large number of people in it.

After you had been there did a number of men come to your house at night? - They did. It was a few days after I went; I think it was one day.

Was it on the day after you paid the rent? - We paid no rent at all that day; it was the day after we went to the agent.

What did the men do? - They came in and asked me for my poor-rate ticket.

Would that show whether you had paid rent or not? Did you produce the whole ticket? - Begorra, I did.

What did they do to you? - Begorra, one of them gave me a stab with a bayonet. I showed them the poor-rate ticket, and that I had not paid. I heard a shot of a gun, but I saw no signs of damage, though I heard the report of the shot. Then they went away.

Did they say why they fired at you? Begorra, they called me a blackguard. (Laughter.)

The witness was not cross-examined.

The Times, London, 15 December 1888

...To be continued... the 25 May 1889 testimony of the Reverend Charles Stuart, Curate of Miltown Malbay...

Jimbo
Posts: 591
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2013 9:43 am

Re: Information is wanted of Thomas McNamara, of Glandree,

Post by Jimbo » Sun Jul 14, 2019 8:03 pm

THE SPECIAL COMMISSION
ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE, May 24 [1889]


The Special Commission held their 86th sitting today at half-past 10 o'clock...

The Rev Charles Stewart [Stuart] was next called. In answer to Mr. ARTHUR RUSSELL, he said - I am a Catholic curate in Miltownmalbay. I went there in 1882. Prior to 1882 I was at Feakle. I remember the murder of Michael Moroney. It took place sometime in 1882. The Land League at Feakle was suppressed at the time. From what I know of the facts of the murder, I believe it was not an agrarian murder. The day after it occurred I denounced it in both churches before large congregations. I did not denounce it at any meetings because no meetings were permitted at the time. The feeling of the people in the neighbourhood as regards that murder was one of universal indignation against the perpetrators. Shortly after the murder I left Feakle and went to Miltown-Malbay. I have heard something of the facts of an outrage on another Michael Moroney of Clonagroo. I think that occurred the same night as the murder of the other Moroney at Feakle. There was no Land League at Miltonmalbay [Feakle?] when it occurred. The National League at Feakle was established after I left. I was a member of the Land League at Feakle, and am a member of the National League where I am now. I was an officer of the League for a short time. I am pretty familiar with the proceedings at League meetings, as I attended them regularly for some time. The class of people who joined the League were generally elderly men of some means. From my knowledge of both Leagues I believe they had no sympathy whatever with crime or outrage. On the contrary, they regarded it as most injurious to their organization.

Cross-examined by Sir HENRY JAMES - I think the murder of Michael Moroney took place at the beginning of 1882. I cannot give you the exact date. Feakle is the name of the parish where Michael Moroney lived. The Land League was established there early in 1880.

You expressed the opinion that the murder of Michael Moroney was not agrarian. Had Michael Moroney paid his rent? - I never heard in the parish that Michael Moroney, had paid his rent.

You know that Mr. Perry was agent to Mr. Thomas Brown. This is what he said:
"Had you any conversation in 1881 with them - that is the tenants - about their rents and about the 'No-rent' manifesto? - It was late in 1881. I was obliged to take proceedings at the end of 1881 in consequence of their not paying rent on account of the 'No-rent' manifesto.

"Did they come to you in 1881, or shortly after that; did they come to you in 1881 in a body in reference to this demand? - They said that they could not pay their rents at the time.

"Did they give any reason? - I cannot remember about the reason. In my opinion, it was on account of the 'No-rent' manifesto.

"Do you remember on a day a number of them coming and two men of the name Moroney separating themselves from the others and coming back into your house? - I do; the office.

"What were the Christian names of those men? - Michael Moroney was one, William Moroney was another, and another named Kenny."


That would probably be in 1882. Have you any reason to doubt that that statement is correct? - I have no reason to doubt what he says. The only thing I wish to say is that I did not hear from any source that he had paid his rent.

Now, a witness named Michael Moroney, who lived at Cloonagro, was called and gave evidence as to an outrage. How far was the nearest Land League branch to Cloonagro? - Three miles.

He told us that he had paid his rent and that the next day men came to him and stabbed him in the back with a bayonet, notwithstanding that he showed the poor rate slip. To what do you attribute that outrage? - He was outside my parish.

Father Stewart, you have come to give evidence in this matter. To what do you attribute that outrage? - To the moonlighters.

I ask to what do you attribute that outrage? - What questions did the men ask when they came?

I will read the passage to you: -
"On Friday you paid the rent, and on Saturday the men came to you? - We did not pay it at all.

"Sir C. Russell. - You did not pay it at all? - Not on that day. We paid no rent at all on this day.

"Mr. Atkinson. - Was it after the day you went to the agent? - After the day we went to the agent those men appeared to us.

"What did they do to you? - They came in, and they asked me for a poor-rate ticket.

"Doe the poor-rate ticket combine a bit to be given to the landlord when you paid your rent, and a bit to be given to the tenant? - Yes.

"And if you had the whole poor-rate ticket they would know whether you paid your rent or not? - Exactly.

"And did you produce the whole of the poor-rate ticket? - Begad, I did.

"And that showed you had paid the rent? - Well, begad, I had not it paid, your Worship.

"What did they do to you, now, after they demanded it from you? - Begorra, one of them gave me a stab of a bayonet, and one of them, begorra, said, 'Be quiet,' and after that I said I had not it paid, and I showed them the poor-rate ticket, and after that they made like a shot of a gun. It appeared to be about the kitchen to me. I could see no sign of it. I fancied there was no damage in it, although it made a report. After that they went away.

"Did they say why they had stabbed you? - They did not say a ha'porth after what I told you. This fellow that stabbed me called me a blackguard."

You know that you have said that one crime, that of the murder of Michael Moroney, of Lahort, was not agrarian. I ask you to what do you attribute the outrage I have just brought to your notice? - I do not know.

Would you attribute it in any way to the fact of this man going to the agent's office, where he might have paid his rent? - I would not.

Not at all? - I do not think so.

To what do you attribute the outrage upon him, if not to the fact that he had gone to the agent? - I could not tell. If he was attacked because he had gone to the agent all the others who had gone to the agent would have been attacked also.

Do you know that the others were attacked? - No.

You never heard of that till now? - No.

You are quite sure that you never heard of anyone else being attacked? - I heard that the moonlighters visited three or four other houses on that night.

Where? - In this neighbourhood of Michael Moroney.

When these visits to tenants on the same estate as that on the Michael Moroney was a tenant? - I am not sure. One of the houses visited was outside my parish, and therefore I cannot speak.

Can you give me the names of any other landlords in the neighbourhood, the tenants on whose property were visited on the same night that Michael Moroney was? - No.

May I then take it that the tenants who were visited lived upon the same property as Michael Moroney? I have no knowledge of the matter. The fourth person visited, I believe, was outside my parish.

You know this neighbourhood, and, having such local knowledge, do you suggest that there was any other landlord than Moroney's whose tenants were visited that night? - No; I do not know.

You know of the visits to three men? - I heard of the visits to four.

Wait a moment. The three, including Moroney, lived upon one property? - Yes.

What was the name of Moroney's landlord? - He was living outside my parish; his name was Brown.

Give me the names of the other tenants who were visited? - There were three men named Moroney and one named Macnamara.

Well, there was Michael Moroney, of Lahort. Did anything happen to him according to your knowledge? - He was shot in the legs.

Then there was Michael Moroney, the witness who gave his evidence; we know what happened to him. Both of these men were living on Mr. Brown's property, were they not? - That is the man who was outside my parish.

Well, James Macnamara, he was a man who lived in your parish? - Yes.
What happened to him? - I do not recollect.
Was he visited? - I believe he was.
And spoken to? - I believe he was.

Who was the fourth man who was visited? Another man of the name of Moroney? - I do not know.

How many of the tenants who were visited had been to the agent? - I do not know. I did not see number who went.

How many tenants were living in the neighbourhood? - Fifteen, I think.

Did the Moroney who was shot go to the agent's? - I believe he did. There were some other reasons alleged why he was shot besides that he had gone to the agent's.

Do you call this visiting at night agrarian or not? - I do not think that the Land League was responsible.

But was it agrarian? - You might call it so. I do not believe, however, that the murder was agrarian.
Was asking for the poor rate ticket agrarian? - Perhaps it was.
Do you disapprove of all such acts? - I do. I have frequently denounced them.
Were any of the perpetrators of these outrages detected? - No.
About this time did you see any strangers in your parish? - No.
Was Feakle in a disturbed state when you were there in 1881? - No.
Were you ever boycotted? - Never.
Nor partially boycotted? - No.
Nothing of the kind ever happen to you? - No.

Was your conduct ever complained of because you would not denounce the police for acting? - No, I am not aware of it.

Were not either you or Father Mead, the parish priest, boycotted, or denounced for not having denounced the police for doing their duty? - No.

Not for any other cause? - No, I never heard of it.

Re-examined by Mr. LOCKWOOD. - Were you boycotted, or did you suffer any inconvenience in that direction? - Well, I was not boycotted.

Do you mean that you suffered any inconveniences? - Well, no - on inconvenience. In my opinion the murder of Michael Moroney was not an agrarian offence. I talked with the people over and over again, and I could find no cause why it should be an agrarian crime. I heard it suggested over and over again that some private quarrel existed between the murdered man and one of his neighbours, and that that might have been the real cause of it. I was not present at the murdered man's funeral because it is not usual for priests to go to funerals in that part of the country unless they are specifically asked to do so. The funeral was well attended I heard. As far as I could see, the sympathy of the neighbourhood was extended to the widow and children of the murdered man. As I have already stated, I was for a short time connected with the Land League. I was president of the local branch for some time before the suppression of the League until its suppression.

Now, Father Stewart, as far as you know did the Land League in your district lend any countenance whatever to these crimes or these acts of intimidation to which your attention has been called? - None whatever.

Did you, without any fear or hesitation, denounce in public such acts of intimidation and outrage? - I did, frequently.

Did any portion of the Land League, or of the members of the Land League, ever find fault with you for not denouncing the acts of the police? - I do not remember that any meeting of the Land League were held after its suppression.

Re-cross-examined by SIR H. JAMES. - I had no connection with the Feakle branch of the Land League in September, 1885, and I knew nothing about its resolutions.

The Times, London, 25 May 1889
The 1889 testimony of the Rev. Charles Stuart stated that he left Feakle for Miltown Malbay "shortly after the murder" of Michael Moroney who was shot on 25 February 1882 and died on 4 March 1882. This description of his movement does bring into question whether or not there were two curates in County Clare named Charles Stuart. I had come to this conclusion (page 16) from an article in The Freeman's Journal on 7 November 1882 of "Lists of subscriptions to the Diocesan College, lately erected at Ennis, from the Bishop, Priests and People of the Diocese of Killaloe". The long listing of Clare priests included both the "Rev. C. Stuart, C.C. Miltownmalbay (£70)" and much lower down "Rev. C. Stuart, C.C. Feakle (£10)". Reading his 1889 testimony, I thought I was mistaken and it more likely that the two donations would be from the same curate. Until I just discovered the below article:
CLERICAL CHANGES IN THE DIOCESE OF KILLALOE
(FROM OUR CORRESPONDENT)

The following changes have taken place in this diocese: - The Rev. Mr. Hayes, C C, has been transferred from Doonbeg to Kilmihill; and the Rev. Daniel Garry, C C, Kilmilhill, and the Rev. Charles Stuart, C C Feakle, have been transferred to Miltown Malbay; the Rev C Stuart, of Miltown Malbay, has been transferred to Roscrea.

The Freeman's Journal, Dublin, 21 November 1882
There are definitely two priests in County Clare named Charles Stuart. The Rev. Charles Stuart, curate of Feakle, was transferred to Miltown Malbay in November 1882 replacing the Rev. Charles Stuart of Miltown Malbay who was sent to Roscrea. The Parnell Commission was in 1889, so the Rev. Charles Stuart can be forgiven for stating that "shortly after the murder I left Feakle and went to Miltown-Malbay", when, in fact, it was many months later in November 1882.

This now clarifies that the Rev. Charles Stuart referenced (see pages 16 and 17) when Andrew Sheedy McNamara of Glandree was arrested on 19 January 1882 over the treatment of Bridget McCormack of the Ladies Land League, was most certainly not the Rev. Charles Stuart who had been a curate in Feakle:
... A large crowd surrounded the barracks, and shouted repeatedly for Messrs. Parnell and Davitt and the Land League. It was feared the people would attack the barracks. The police made a sortie and arrested several persons, who were brought before Mr. Lloyd, who sentenced three young men to six months' imprisonment. One Mr. Sheedy, is a young man in delicate health, a brother in law (**) of the Rev C Stuart, the respected curate of Miltownmalbay. The others are brothers named Murphy [Denis and Stephen of Lahardane]. The excitement ran very high and one shot was fired, it is said, from the barracks. The prisoners were conveyed to Ennis under a strong escort and lodged in Limerick jail this morning.
The Freeman's Journal, 21 January 1882

** Sheila thought it more likely that this Rev Charles Stuart was a brother-in-law of Denis Murphy who married Winifred Stuart, Ballybrohan, daughter of Dominic Stuart, farmer, in Ogonoloe Chapel. This was indeed the case. Rev. Charles Stuart of Milton Malbay who was transferred to Roscrea was reported on the 1911 Census as living in House 1 in Parkmore, Roscrea, Tipperary; occupation "RC Clergyman"; born in County Clare, age 67. So born about 1844. Dominic Stuart and Anne Scanlon, of Ballybrohan at Ogonnelloe Parish baptized their son Charles Stuart on 11 February 1844. A perfect match.

Jimbo
Posts: 591
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2013 9:43 am

Re: Information is wanted of Thomas McNamara, of Glandree,

Post by Jimbo » Sat Jul 20, 2019 1:25 am

During the Parnell Commission, the witness Charles W Perry, Tulla land agent, received lots of questions during his testimony, first by Justice Smith, and then by Michael Davitt, about evicting a tenant named Conheedy in 1884 and allowing a man named McNamara to lease the property which created difficulties for Charles Perry. The Parnell Commission interviews published in The Times of London were generally far more detailed than The Freeman's Journal of Dublin. However, with regards to Michael Davitt's questions to Perry about McNamara, while the article in The Times was certainly longer, the Freeman's Journal was more informative, and possibly more accurate. From The Times, 15 December 1888:
By Mr. Davitt. - With respect to Macnamara, who you say was boycotted, was he arrested in 1879? - No, there was a Macnamara arrested; I am not aware whether it was he.

Are you aware it was not? - No.
Was there not some jealousy between him and Halloran? Did you know of any ill-feeling between them? - No.

Did you know whether he [MacNamara] gave boys drink to put up threatening notices at Tulla? - I do not know; I am not aware.
From the Freeman's Journal of Dublin, 15 December 1888:
To Mr. Davitt - Witness was not aware that Francis M'Namara - the man referred to - had been arrested in 1881 for firing into Mr. Spaight's house; neither did he know that M'Namara had given boys in Tulla drink to induce them to put up threatening notices against himself.
Not sure why both Mr. Atkinson (see prior posting) and Mr. Davitt, on opposing sides in the Parnell Commission, brought up Francis McNamara, assuming the Freeman's Journal has the correct name, in relation to Charles Perry? And not sure why The Times would state the first incident with McNamara was in 1879 and the Freeman's Journal would state 1881? Here is reporting of the incident back in 1881:
John and Francis Macnamara, two brothers, butchers, of Tulla, were arrested under the Coercion Act yesterday morning, and brought into Ennis, whence they were dispatched by the noon train to Galway Gaol. The warrants under which they were arrested contain two distinct charges, the first of firing into the house of Mr. Robert Spaight, J.P., Affock, on the night of the 7th inst.; and the second of inciting others to send threatening letters to the gentry of the surrounding districts, warning them to cease dealing with a rival butcher named Halloran, who was "Boycotted," it is said, by the Macnamara's influence so as to divert trade to themselves.

The Morning Post, London, 14 October 1881
"Boycotted" was in quotes in the above article as this term had only come in use recently; an Irish gift to the English language. Its origins were from 1880 when in County Mayo a local community withdrew all labor and socially isolated an English land agent by the name of Charles Boycott :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Boycott

These events also make it clear that not all the violence and threats of violence were associated with landlord and tenants disagreements. The "ill feeling" between McNamara and Halloran mentioned by Michael Davitt appeared to be over market share of the butcher trade in Tulla. With regards to the two butchers John and Francis McNamara, we've come across these Coercion suspects previously, on page 20:
The next arrests from the Tulla district in County Clare were John McNamara [222] and Frank McNamara [223] on 12 October 1881. In my prior posting I stated incorrectly (since deleted) that these two men would have been at Kilmainham Prison at the same time as Charles Stuart Parnell [224], but, in fact, these two McNamara's were imprisoned at "Galway and Limerick" according to the March report to Parliament. Also, it is important to note that "Tulla district" appears to encompass other parishes than Tulla such as Bodyke and O'Callaghan Mills. Another day, I'll find out more about the story of John McNamara and Frank McNamara and where they were from.
The Limerick Gaol records state that John McNamara (#1286) was age 27; height 5 foot 9 inches; residence Tulla; occupation butcher; born in O'Callaghan Mills. His younger brother Francis McNamara (#1287) was age 23, height 5 foot 7 inches; residence Tulla; occupation butcher; born in O'Callaghan Mills. The brothers were transferred from Galway prison to Limerick Prison on 28 October 1881. John was released on 23 April 1882; Francis was released on 2 May 1882. Both men gained about 7 pounds during their imprisonment.

These two Coercion suspects must be the sons of John McNamara of Rossneylon and Bridget McMahon of Inagh who married in O'Callaghan Mills on 20 January 1849. From Sharon's transcriptions of O'Callaghan Mills Parish, the McNamara's of Rossneylon had at least eight children: Rody (1850); Daniel (1851); Michael (1852); John (1855); Rodger (1856); Francis (1858); Catherine (1863); William (1866).

John McNamara (1855), the Coercion Suspect, according to one newspaper had "five in family" when arrested in 1881. He must be the John McNamara of Tulla who married Bridget Slattery on 1 December 1875 "by special license" (civil record not yet available). From Sheila's transcriptions of Tulla Parish, they had the following children while residing in Tulla: Thomas (1876); Bridget (1878); John (1879); as well as Nora in 1883 (per this civil record, father's occupation was "butcher"). By the 1901 census, John McNamara was living on House 12 in Bridge Street, Gort, Galway, where he was reported as 45 years old; born in County Clare; widower; occupation "victualler" (same as a "butcher" in Ireland); along with three of his children, mother-in-law Sarah Walsh ("retired victualler"), brother-in-law Edward Slattery (married, farmer), and two servants.

http://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/p ... t/1384076/

Francis McNamara (1858), from Tulla, occupation "victualler", son of farmer John McNamara, married Margaret Reddan, daughter of farmer Corney Reddan, on 4 February 1885 at Tulla Chapel, witnesses John McNamara and Mary McGrath. The widower Francis McNamara, a victualler from Tulla, son of farmer John McNamara, married Margaret Murphy, daughter of farmer Patrick Murphy, on 18 November 1891 at the Catholic Chapel at Kilmurry, witnesses William McNamara and Mary Ellen Murphy. In the 1901 Irish Census, Margaret McNamara (age 37) is a widow, occupation "publican", living at House 114 in Tulla Town with her three young children and two domestic servants. Her husband Francis McNamara, a victualler, had died on 14 April 1897; his age was reported as 36 years on the civil death record. According to the inquest, his cause of death was "fracture of skull caused by a fall from a horse."

http://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/p ... a/1088060/

So these two brothers born in O'Callaghan Mills Parish appear unlikely to have any close connections to the other McNamara families from Tulla Parish previously outlined in the search for the missing Thomas McNamara of Glandree. Which is good to know. Also interesting how mobile within Ireland the younger sons of farmers, who would not inherit land, could be in the 19th century. John McNamara would first move from his birthplace O'Callaghan Mills to Tulla, and then to Gort in County Galway. Still not clear why the Tulla land agent, Charles Perry, received so many questions at the Parnell Commission about events involving a man named McNamara from 1879 (or 1881?) through 1886.

Jimbo
Posts: 591
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2013 9:43 am

Re: Information is wanted of Thomas McNamara, of Glandree,

Post by Jimbo » Wed Jul 24, 2019 2:35 am

At the start of the Parnell Commission, the Attorney General, Sir Richard Webster, gave an opening speech outlining what evidence would be presented and what the commission hoped to prove. It's much easier to follow than the actual witness testimony that would come later. I've already quoted the references to Charles Perry and the murder of Michael Moroney from Day 2. But I did not realize that the speech lasted 22 hours over a five day period. And upon a subsequent search (using "Perry" instead of "Moroney") was surprised to discover that Charles Perry gets another mention on Day 5 of the speech; this is in relation to the boycotting of the Tulla butcher named McNamara:
THE SPECIAL COMMISSION
ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE, 26 Oct [1888, Fifth Day]

The ATTORNEY GENERAL, resuming his speech...[then, several hours later]...

I would now call to your attention to the speeches delivered on the 23d of January, 1887, ... Mr. Cox, M.P., moved this resolution: "That we renew our condemnation of the land-grabber, and their aiders, abettors, and supporters," and said "No man should be found in the country so vile or base as to take possession of a farm from which a tenant was evicted for non-payment of impossible rent. If any man had the audacity or the temerity to take that farm, with a heart bad and black enough to take possession of that farm, the strength and manhood of the country would come to the assistance of the wicked and make it so hot, or rather so cold, for the wretched land-grabber that he would be very glad to be banished out of that place...[a lot more of the same]..." Such is the speech of Mr. Cox, a member of the National League and one of Mr. Parnell's Parliamentary followers, and this is in January 1887....There are in the county Clare many outrages, but I will pick out two which will have a direct bearing on the suggestion made in that speech of Mr. Cox. One of these occurred in April, 1885. This case covers a considerable period of time, and is a good illustration of the way in which this system was worked.

The PRESIDENT. - I thought you said you were giving an illustration of the effect of Mr. Cox's speeches. Is not this before the speeches of Mr. Cox which you have read?

The ATTORNEY GENERAL. - Yes, that is so; but at any rate it is an instance of the practices which Mr. Cox advocated. I admit it is before Mr. Cox delivered his speech. A man named [Charles] Perry was agent to a Mr. [Thomas Brady] Brown, who had let a house in the village of Tulla at a rent of £2. The tenant, a man named [John] Conheedy, had occupied it for many years. About the end of 1884, the lease fell in, and Perry wanted to raise the rent from £2 to £3, which Conheedy refused to pay, and he gave up the house. A butcher named [Francis] M'Namara, of Tulla, took the house at the rent of £3, which, having regard to the fact that it was situated in a village, does not appear to have been a very high rent. Perry was summoned before the League, and he did not attend. M'Namara was then summoned before the League and ordered to give up the house. He asked for time, but before he could get another house he was boycotted and could do no business whatever. Perry's labourers were ordered by the League to leave Perry's employment, which they did. They afterwards attended before the League committee and asked permission to return to their employment, as they could not get any other; but this was refused. Your Lordships will hear again and again of this Land League committee. On Easter Sunday, the 5th of April [1885], Perry was fired at in broad daylight as he was returning home from church. Perry was then boycotted. He could not get men to save his harvest, and had to employ men from the Property Defense Association ["Emergency Men"] in Dublin. His brother, George Perry, also suffered on his account. A man named Hogan, who took hay from him in lieu of wages, was noticed to attend before the League at Tulla on the 6th of September, 1885, and having presumably failed to satisfy the committee, that same night his house was broken into, he was dragged out in front, and severely beaten with sticks. M'Namara left the house in September, 1885. It remained untenanted till June, 1886, when it was given back to the former tenant [John Conheedy]. I submit that this was only an instance of the organised system of intimidation that was carried on. The other case...

The Times, London, 27 October 1888
The Commission attempted to show that the boycotting of Francis McNamara, a butcher from Tulla, as well as the shooting and boycotting of Charles Perry in 1885 were directly due to Tulla Land League actions. The Commission also meant to prove that Irish MP's through their speeches encouraged this violence. However, the actual testimony of Charles Perry in 1888 was quite confusing as it combined two independent events: the murder of Michael Moroney in 1882 and the boycotting of Francis McNamara in 1885. Perhaps to discredit Francis McNamara, Michael Davitt brought up a third event, that McNamara had been arrested in 1881 for a shooting of a Mr. Spaight and encouraging others to post threatening notices. This made the testimony by Charles Perry even more confusing.

Charles W. Perry stated in his testimony that he was a Catholic. In the Tulla baptism records, Charles William Perry was baptized on 14 February 1856, parents John Perry and Elizabeth Lipper of Formerla. So when all these events took place, Charles Perry was a very young man, much younger than I had anticipated. During the Parnell Commission, Charles Perry was reported as the "land agent" for Thomas Brady Browne of Newgrove. But he was also his brother-in-law. Emily Perry, age 17, daughter of John Perry, a farmer from Formerla, married Thomas B Brady, age 28, son of Luke Brady, a gentleman from Newgrove, on 8 February 1875, at the Church of Ireland parish church in Tulla. In the 1901 Census, Elizabeth Perry (age 85, a widow) is reported as a "relative" living with Thomas B Browne (age 54, occupation "derives income from land") and Emily Browne (age 42) in House 4, New Grove, County Clare:

http://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/p ... e/1086912/

Charles Perry, age 21, farmer, son of farmer John Perry of Fomerla, married Bedelia Frost, age 18, daughter of Pat Frost of Drumline, on 15 August 1877, at the Roman Catholic Chapel of Our Lady of the Wells in Newmarket on Fergus. In 1878, the first of their four children was born. And in 1881, their house at Formerla was fired into by moonlighters:
THE STATE OF IRELAND

A telegram from Ennis states that about 10 p.m. on Monday several shots were fired into the house of Mr. Charles Perry, farmer, about two miles from Tulla. One of the bullets struck the wall close to Mrs. Perry. No arrests have been effected, nor have the police any clue to the perpetrators. Mr. Perry has lately been appointed agent over some property, and had caused processes for rent to be served on a number of the tenants.

Liverpool Mercury, 29 March 1881
More violence followed in 1885:
THE RECENT ALLEGED ATTEMPTED MURDER IN CLARE
(TELEGRAM FROM OUR CORRESPONDENCE)
Ennis, Friday [25 April, 1885]

At the Ennis Petty Sessions to-day, Thomas Conheedy [son of John Conheedy, per other newspaper accounts] was put forward on remand, charged with firing at with intent to murder Mr. Charles Perry on Sunday, the 5th inst. The details of the case, as deposed to in the evidence, are briefly as follows: - Mr. Perry, who is agent to his brother-in-law, Mr. Brady Browne, of Newgrove, near Tulla, was returning from Divine service on the date in question, accompanied by three men, all seated on an outside car, and when about three miles from the town two shots were fired in rapid succession from behind a low wall. Mr. Perry immediately stood up on the vehicle and recognised his assailant, and then drove to the nearest police station, where he deposed to the occurrence implicating the accused. The other occupants of the car, although having heard the shots, did not observe anyone. The case was investigated on the 19th inst before Mr. Crotty, R.M., and the only witness examined before Mr. Perry, who deviated materially from his sworn information, resulting in an adjournment to this day.

District Inspector M'Namara applied for a further remand of one week, there being no communication from the Attorney-General how to proceed.

Mr. O'Meehan, solicitor for the defence, having no objection, the application was acceded to and the accused admitted to bail.

The Freeman's Journal, Dublin, 25 April 1885
In April 1885, Charles Perry would not identify Thomas Conheedy at the trial unlike in his earlier sworn deposition. Years later in 1892, Alfred Turner, who had been the Divisional Commissioner of County Clare in 1885, would write a letter to The Times (7 December 1892) with his recollections of these events: "... between their committal and the assizes some sinister and occult influence (the nature of which is not hard to guess) was brought to bear on Mr. Perry, who presumably, partly owing to threats, partly inspired by the hope that he would escape further persecution, before the grand jury went back on his information, and would not identify the men. Thus the prosecution failed..." In 1886, John Conheedy, the father of Thomas, was allowed to return to his house in Tulla that had been let out to Francis McNamara, as per the testimony of Charles Perry in 1888. No mention of the 1885 attempted shooting was included in the 1888 testimony of Charles Perry at the Parnell Commission, although it had been a part of the opening speech by the Attorney General. In looking back at the testimony of Charles Perry, his answers were quite short, and you might even say he was a somewhat reluctant witness who simply wanted to avoid further trouble. Sadly, for Charles W Perry, as a land agent during a Land War, this would prove very difficult to do.
THE PROVINCES

A terrible outrage was committed on Sunday morning in Tulla District, East Clare. It appears that Mr. Charles W. Perry, land and house agent to several East Clare properties, was driving to attend Mass at Tulla, and at a place called Newgrove four men, all armed, jumped over a wall at the roadside, pulled him off the car, and searched him, presumably to ascertain if he were armed. One of the ruffians then discharged a revolver at him, the bullet passing through his thigh, after which they shot his horse dead. They then decamped. Information of the occurrence was quickly conveyed to Tulla, and Drs. Maloney, Macfarlane, and Scanlan, with District Inspector Higgins, proceeded to the scene of the outrage. Mr. Perry who had been conveyed to his own residence half a mile distant, was found by the doctors to be in a prostate condition from loss of blood, and Father Lynch, curate of Tulla, was sent to administer the last rites of the Church. Mr. Perry, who is a young man, was fired at on Easter Sunday, 1885, while returning from Mass at Tulla, but he then escaped uninjured. Previous to this, in 1881, when he was under police protection, his home house was fired into. A Correspondent telegraphed last night - "The shooting outrage on Mr. Charles Perry has caused great sensation in county Clare, where he was well known as a land agent. In that capacity he recently, at Ennis Quarter Sessions, obtained ejectment decrees against some tenants, and the outrage is attributed to this action on his part. The injuries sustained by the unfortunate gentleman are more serious than at first reported. The small bone of the leg is fractured, and the sinews are cut and lacerated. Two men were arrested to-day on suspicion of being concerned in the outrage.

The Standard, London, 19 January 1892
THE OUTRAGE IN CLARE
INQUEST OF THE VICTIM

Ennis, Monday

An inquest was held on Saturday evening on Mr. Charles W. Perry, who died at Fomerla on Saturday from injuries sustained by being shot at while going to Mass by four disguised men. After evidence had been given the jury returned the following verdict:-

"That the deceased, Chas W Perry, of Formerla, died on January 29th from exhaustion following a gunshot wound inflicted on him at Newgrove, on his way to Mass on Sunday, 17th January, 1892; and we find that said gunshot wound was feloniously inflicted on said Chas W Perry by some person or persons unknown to the jury."

Prayers for the repose of the soul of Mr. Perry were offered at all the Masses in and about Tulla yesterday, and the clergymen denounced the crime in the strongest language possible.

The Freeman's Journal
, Dublin, 2 February 1892
The Graphic, an Illustrated Weekly Newspaper, London, 22 December 1888.jpg
The Graphic, an Illustrated Weekly Newspaper, London, 22 December 1888.jpg (59.31 KiB) Viewed 30617 times

Sduddy
Posts: 1826
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 10:07 am

Re: Information is wanted of Thomas McNamara, of Glandree,

Post by Sduddy » Sat Jul 27, 2019 8:04 pm

Hi Jim

It seems there was a lot more information on the Parnell Commission in The Times and in The Freeman’s Journal than there was in The Daily News, the newspaper John MacDonald reported for. His reports were published as The Diary of the Parnell Commission: https://archive.org/details/diaryofparn ... ch/page/n5

I had noticed that there was very little on Co. Clare in MacDonald’s reports as compared with counties Kerry, Galway and Mayo, and I’d assumed that Clare had not featured much in the proceedings, but I've decided now that MacDonald must have been down with a cold when the Clare witnesses were on the stand.

Your last posting shows up another mistake in my transcription of Tulla baptisms: Elizabeth “Lipper” should be Elizabeth Tipper; the Perry headstone in Old Ballysheen graveyard includes her maiden name – see headstone No. 27: http://www.clarelibrary.ie/eolas/coclar ... ptions.htm

Sheila

Jimbo
Posts: 591
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2013 9:43 am

Re: Information is wanted of Thomas McNamara, of Glandree,

Post by Jimbo » Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:33 am

Hi Sheila,

Thanks very much for the link to the Diary of Parnell Commission by John MacDonald. Most definitely The Times newspaper reporting was more detailed. It appears that MacDonald was in attendance during the testimony of the Rev. Charles Stuart, but only had a few remarks:
After Mr. Sullivan there followed three witnesses from Milton Malbay in county Clare. They were examined regarding The Times evidence on the murder of Mike Moroney, and the intimidation of James Connell. On both counts they contradicted the testimony of The Times witnesses. The first of the three, Father Stewart, was of the opinion that the murder of Moroney was not of agrarian origin. He thought it was the result of a private feud. The second...

Diary of the Parnell Commission, by John MacDonald, May 24, 1889 (page 254)
In his diary for 14th December, 1888, MacDonald only alludes to the testimony of Charles W Perry, "The rest of the sitting was occupied with the examination of seven witnesses", but provides no detail whatsoever - perhaps with the three different incidents mentioned by Perry, it was too confusing? MacDonald certainly provided a bit of color to the testimony of Michael Moroney from Cloonagro:
Another witness, Moroney, was so voluble, that both sides appeared to be only too glad to get rid of him. He tossed his head, threw his arms about, nodded at the bench, nodded at counsel, laughed, and laughed again as he described how the moonlighters gave him a "shtab with a bagnet" (bayonet). What did they "shtab" him for? He did not know; but they called him a "blackgyard." Mike Moroney had another fit of laughter, as if the vagueness of the charge of being a blackguard was too much for him. He would have gone on for an hour. But he was sent out of the box without any cross-examination.

Diary of the Parnell Commission, by John MacDonald, December 14, 1888 (page 91)
For Michael Moroney, a farmer from County Clare, a trip to London to testify, at Commission expense no less, must have been incredibly exciting. Was curious about the identity of this Michael Moroney, and not too surprisingly my research leads us to another McNamara. In the 1901 Census, for Cloonagro Townland there were only eight houses, but House 1 through House 5 are all associated with a Moroney family. Michael is a common forename.

The Michael Moroney, who testified at the Parnell Commission, is most definitely the Michael Moroney, of House 5 at the 1901 Census, who was married to Anne McNamara. At the baptism of their first born son, Michael Moroney in 1860, the sponsors were "James and Margaret Mack". If the priest incorrectly wrote "Margaret" instead of "Anne", the baptism sponsors might be their neighbors in Cloonagro, James McNamara married in 1850 to Anne Rodgers (this James McNamara was the brother of the McNamara's of Griffith Valuation Plot 3 of Glandree, and uncle to Thomas McNamara, the Coercion suspect). I also considered that the sponsor James McNamara was from Magherabaun (see family tree on page 18), as there were two choices both with a spouse named Margaret: (1) James McNamara, from Magherabaun Plot 15, married Margaret Bowles of Glandree; and (2) James McNamara, from Magherabaun Plot 16, married Margaret Rodgers of Killena. But both their marriages were a decade after the 1860 baptism, in 1870 and 1872, respectively. Perhaps "James and Margaret Mack" were siblings and not a married couple? The first born daughter of Michael Moroney and Anne McNamara was named "Margaret"; also the mother's name of the James McNamara who married Margaret Bowles. If any of the children of Michael Moroney and Anne McNamara immigrated to Washington DC or Pittsburgh, this might provide circumstantial evidence of a family connection to James McNamara and Margaret Bowles.

At the Parnell Commission, during the 1889 testimony of the Rev. Charles Stuart, one lawyer summarized the earlier 1888 testimony of Michael Moroney of Cloonagro as "He told us that he had paid his rent and that the next day men came to him and stabbed him in the back with a bayonet, notwithstanding that he showed the poor rate slip". Michael Moroney never stated this, even while the lawyers tried to trick him into saying so, "On Friday you paid the rent, and on Saturday the men came to you? - We did not pay it at all".

Charles W Perry stated that the two men who paid their rent were "Michael and William Moroney" and also mentioned that "The second Moroney lived in the same townland". I could find a William Moroney who had lived at Cloonagro (see House 3 below) and also a William Moroney who had land at Leighort More in the Griffith Valuation records. Was Charles Perry confused about whether or not the Michael Moroney of Leighort was the one who paid the rent? Or as a victim of agrarian violence himself, did he see no reason to identify Michael Moroney of Cloonagro, who was to testify directly after him, as the man who paid the rent? If, and it is a big if, Michael Moroney of Cloonagro was indeed the man who paid the rent, there would have been some guilt that Michael Moroney of Leighort was murdered leaving a widow Catherine Doyle Moroney and six young children. There was one thing in his control (assuming arranged marriages were still the norm) to help mediate this terrible situation. Michael Moroney, the eldest son of Michael Moroney, of Cloonagro, married Catherine Doyle Moroney, the widow of Michael Moroney, daughter of Michael Doyle of Leighort, at the Roman Catholic Chapel at Kilclarin on 2 November 1884. Typically, in the 19th century when there is a large difference in ages between a bride and groom, it would be the groom who is older. However, it was the widow Catherine Doyle Moroney of Leighort who was about 10 or so years older than Michael Moroney of Cloonagro.

The Moroney families of Cloonagro:

<Cloonagro, Loughea, House 1, House 1>: Mary Moroney (widow, age 40 in 1901; age 53 in 1911) with four children under 20 in 1901. Patrick Moroney (died prior to 1901), of Cloonagro, son of Michael Moroney (dead), married Mary Moroney (age 40 in 1901; age 53 in 1911), daughter of William Moroney (see House 3 below) of Cloonagro, on 26 February 1879. Since the father, Michael Moroney, was deceased in 1879, he could not be the Michael Moroney who testified at the Parnell Commission in December 1888.

<Cloonagro, Loughea, House 2, House 5>: Michael Moroney (age 40 in 1901; age 60 in 1911) married Maria Tuohy on 26 February 1889, civil record not yet available. Michael named his first born son Matthew, and is living with his mother Margaret Moroney (age 88) in 1901. He is likely either the son of (1) Matthew Moroney and Margaret Milehan of Cloonagro; or (2) Matthew Moroney and Margaret Blehan/Blenahan/Blaney of Cloonagro. The Michael Moroney of Cloonagro who was attacked in 1882 appeared to have been a married farmer; this Michael Moroney was still single.

<Cloonagro, Loughea, House 3, House 2>: Honora Moroney (widow; age 73 in 1901; age 87 in 1911) with son-in-law John O'Mara (age 47 in 1901) and daughter Kate O'Mara (age 45 in 1901). Honora Moroney was the widow of William Moroney. Their daughter Mary Moroney married Patrick Moroney of House 1 in 1879.

<Cloonagro, Loughea, House 4, House 4>: Mary Moroney (widow, age 50 in 1901) with children Patrick (age 27 in 1901) and Bridget (age 20 in 1901). The parents of these two children were John Moroney and Mary O'Brien of Cloonagro.

<Cloonagro, Loughea, House 5, House 3>: Michael Moroney (age 64 in 1901; age 78 in 1911) was married to Anne McNamara (age 50 in 1901; age 76 in 1911); unknown marriage prior to 1859. Michael Moroney, farmer, married, died in Cloonagro, age 84, on 13 November 1913; informant daughter-in-law Ellen Moroney. Anne Moroney, widow of a farmer, died in Cloonagro, age 87, on 24 August 1922; informant her son John Moroney.

The following children were recorded in the Caher Feakle baptism register with parents Michael Moroney and Annie Mack residing in Cloonagro:

............ 1.1 Margaret Moroney (February 1859), mother "Nancy" Mack; sponsors John Morony and Mary Mack

............ 1.2 Michael Moroney (1860), sponsors James and Margaret Mack. Michael Moroney, son of Michael Moroney of Cloonagro, married Catherine Moroney, widow [of Michael Moroney of Leighort], daughter of Michael Doyle of Leighort, at the Roman Catholic Chapel at Kilclarin on 2 November 1884; witnesses Michael Holohan and Anne Moroney. <Leighort More, Loughea, House 3, House 2>

............ 1.3 Darby Moroney (1865), sponsor Patt McInerny

............ 1.4 Patt Moroney (1871), sponsors Patt and Bridget Morony

............ 1.5 Ellen Moroney (1874), sponsors Patrick O'Brien, Bridget Morony

............ 1.6 John Moroney (1876), sponsors Michael Canny, Mary Moroney <Cloonagro, Loughea, House 5, House 3> married to Ellen McKee
......................... 1.6.1 Mick Moroney (age 5 in 1911) <Cloonagro, Loughea, x, House 3>
......................... 1.6.2 Norah Moroney (age 4 in 1911) <Cloonagro, Loughea, x, House 3>
......................... 1.6.3 Willie Moroney (age 3 in 1911) <Cloonagro, Loughea, x, House 3>
......................... 1.6.4 Patt Moroney (age 2 in 1911) <Cloonagro, Loughea, x, House 3>
......................... 1.6.5 Annie Moroney (age 1 in 1911) <Cloonagro, Loughea, x, House 3>

............ 1.7 Anne Moroney (1880), sponsors Patrick Moroney, Mary Moroney <Cloonagro, Loughea, House 5, x>

Sduddy
Posts: 1826
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 10:07 am

Re: Information is wanted of Thomas McNamara, of Glandree,

Post by Sduddy » Tue Jul 30, 2019 10:09 am

Hi Jim, I must say I think it is a mistake to speak of Michael Moroney as having been murdered. Yes, the authorities at the time called it murder, but I don’t believe that there was any intention to kill him. I think shooting him in the leg was meant as a punishment, and I think the neighbours around about would have seen it as such.

As for John MacDonald’s portrayal of several of the Irish witnesses: this was done to provide some amusment for his readers; otherwise the proceedings, apart from the cross-examination of Piggott (which laid bare the forgeries) would have been very repetitive. That cross-examination caused much laughter in court. Even the judges were convulsed with laughter (“The judges themselves were unable to repress their feelings …Mr Justice Day, bending forward, reddened, and shook, with laughter”). Mention of laughter in court was often used to add colour to newspaper reports. I don’t know when this practice ended – it must be a long time ago - we would find it very strange now.

Sheila

Jimbo
Posts: 591
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2013 9:43 am

Re: Information is wanted of Thomas McNamara, of Glandree,

Post by Jimbo » Sun Aug 04, 2019 4:50 am

Hi Sheila,

Yes, the moonlighters who attacked Michael Moroney in February 1882 made their intent clear when posting a threatening notice: "Boycott Perry - Have nothing to do with Perry, or by the Immaculate Jesus I will cripple him. ... Any person buying or working for Perry or bastard Browne I declare myself before Christ I will make his blood flow before no distant date". So I suppose you might be correct that the moonlighters had no intent to murder Michael Moroney of Leighort but severely wound him.

As far as how the neighbors of Michael Moroney would have described his death, we do have the testimony of Michael Moroney of Cloonagro at the Parnell Commission who stated: "I knew my namesake Michael Moroney, who was murdered. I remember the tenants going to Mr. Brown some time before Moroney was murdered". And I don't believe the neighbors would have necessarily considered the shooting of Moroney as a "punishment" as you suggested. The testimony of the Rev. Charles Stuart stated "The feeling of the people in the neighbourhood as regards that murder was one of universal indignation against the perpetrators." The Rev. Charles Stuart confirmed in his testimony, "I did not hear from any source that he had paid his rent". Thus, from the testimony, I don't believe his neighbors would have considered the shooting as a punishment, but more likely a mistake. Michael Moroney pleaded "If ye kill me, ye will kill me innocent" just prior to being shot. Both Charles Perry and the Rev. Charles Stuart were questioned about the funeral of Michael Moroney which they stated was well attended and much sympathy was shown the widow and her family.

Some historical and local context on why Charles Perry and the Rev. Charles Stuart were questioned at the Parnell Commission about the attendance of the funeral of Michael Moroney can be gleamed from an 1881 shooting that occurred just six months before in Ballinahinch, about 5 miles to the east of the town of Tulla:
Michael Conway, a herd[sman] in the employment of Captain O'Callaghan, of Ballinahinch, county of Clare, who was fired at on the 21st of August by two men with blackened faces, and wearing mackintosh overcoats, who shot him with revolvers in the hip, has died of tetanus, the result of the wounds. The cause alleged for the murder is that two years ago the deceased got a man named Canny fined £5 for killing a pheasant on his master's preserves. Another reason given is that he was suspected of giving private information to the police, because letters had passed between his daughter and some constables who were enamoured of her. The bitter vindictiveness of the persons concerned in the murder of Conway was shown in the posting of notices on Tuesday at Ballinahinch, cautioning the people against attending his funeral. One arrest has been made.

The Morning Post, London, 8 September 1881
The shooting of Michael Conway also highlights that various explanations for outrages are often provided in the newspapers that exclude the most obvious. Was Michael Conway really shot over a £5 fine levied on another man for shooting a pheasant two years prior? Some of the constables protecting Captain O'Callaghan in 1881 may have indeed been enamoured with one of the three daughters of Michael Conway who were between 16 and 24 years old. However, the most likely explanation for the shooting of the herdsman Michael Conway is that his employer Captain O'Callaghan of Ballinahinch as well as two other magistrates from County Clare had been boycotted since 1880 "because they had attended the meeting of Clare magistrates, at which resolutions were passed calling on the Government for coercive measures" (Bristol Mercury, 18 Dec. 1880). Therefore, anyone working for Captain O'Callaghan of Ballinahinch would being putting their life at risk. From December 1880:
ATTACK ON COLONEL O'CALLAGHAN
THREE RIOTERS STABBED BY THE POLICE


The Limerick correspondent of the Dublin Express says:- The Petty Sessions Court at Tulla, county Clare, was densely crowded on Thursday owing to the prosecution of a baker named Patrick O'Halloran for having, as alleged, posted the following notice on the chapel gate at Tulla on Sunday morning last:-

Captain [Charles George] O'Callaghan [Ballinahinch], [Edward] Bourke Browne [Newgrove], and [Daniel] O'Connell [Kilgorey], Traitors to Ireland, voted for coercion. Before Long their doom will be that of Lord Mountmorres. Tulla men, do your duty. Now or ever put an end to those vile and villainous wretches.
(Signed), RORY

The magistrates sitting at petty sessions were Colonel [George] O'Callaghan [Maryfort], Captain M'Ternan, and Mr. Daniel O'Connell. The accused was returned for trial at the Cork assizes. When leaving the town Colonel O'Callaghan, who was armed with a double-barrelled gun, was guarded by 30 police with fixed bayonets. A stone was thrown at the Colonel from the groaning crowd. The police charged on the people and three persons were stabbed. Intense excitement prevails.

The Guardian, London, 18 December 1880
Sheila, you already brought up this Patrick O'Halloran on page 20 in reference to the intimidation of juries, but this provides further detail on why he was arrested. In the above and other newspaper articles, it was confusing trying to distinguish between "Captain O'Callaghan" and "Colonel O'Callaghan"; especially since Colonel John O'Callaghan of Maryfort was also a Captain in the 1860's; Lieutenant-Colonel in the 1870's; Colonel in the 1880's. The parents of Colonel John O'Callaghan (and Donatus O'Callaghan who ended up in the Bogan Scrub of Australia) were George O'Callaghan and Mary Westropp of Maryfort. I believe George O'Callaghan of Maryfort was a first cousin of Captain Charles George O'Callaghan of Ballinahinch. Apparently this relationship did not excuse Colonel O'Callaghan of Maryfort from being a magistrate at the Tulla Petty Sessions when Patrick O'Halloran was charged for posting a threatening note against Captain O'Callaghan of Ballinahinch. Patrick O'Halloran had a very good solicitor by the name of James Hishon Moran, from County Limerick, who provided a spirited defense and nearly got himself thrown out of the proceedings. James Moran, solicitor, was later arrested on 17 May 1881 at Rathkeale under the Protection of Life and Property Act and sent to Naas Prison for "inciting persons to oppose and resist the execution of the law for giving possession of lands, and also inciting to riot and assault and acts of violence, tending to interfere with the maintenance of law and order". James Moran is Coercion Suspect #85 on the March 1882 listing to Parliament:

http://www.dippam.ac.uk/eppi/documents/ ... age/455259

Sduddy
Posts: 1826
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 10:07 am

Re: Information is wanted of Thomas McNamara, of Glandree,

Post by Sduddy » Tue Aug 06, 2019 10:37 am

Hi Jim

Apart from the battle of Bodyke (1881) and the Bodyke evictions (1887), it seems to me that not very much has been written about the Land War in Clare, or at least not about particular events in that war. I’ve been looking at the titles of articles published in Clare journals and magazines* on this website: https://tbreen.home.xs4all.nl/journals.html (which I didn't know about until mentioned by P Waldron on this forum) and I don’t see any article (other than Bodyke) on the Land War.
It’s possible that local historians do not feel that they have enough information on which to base an article; public records do not always tell the full story; and it’s not always clear whether motives were personal, or political. It’s possible, too, that somebody might feel that writing about those who were arrested under the Coercion Acts is perpetuating the wrong that was done them in the first place (unfortunately, it is a fact of life that people rarely allow that someone who is arrested might be entirely innocent). And probably it is still a very sensitive subject, especially as descendents are often still living in the very same place.

Dál gCais (1972-1993): https://tbreen.home.xs4all.nl/Journals/DalgCais.html

The Other Clare (1977 -): https://tbreen.home.xs4all.nl/Journals/Clare.html (note: this year’s issue, Vol. 43, is included here).

Sliabh Aughty: East Clare Heritage (1977- ): https://tbreen.home.xs4all.nl/Journals/ ... ughty.html (the site is not up to date on issues published since 2013)

Sheila

Jimbo
Posts: 591
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2013 9:43 am

Re: Information is wanted of Thomas McNamara, of Glandree,

Post by Jimbo » Fri Aug 09, 2019 3:53 am

Hi Sheila,

As always thank you for your feedback. The links to the contents of the various journals certainly show a great variety of topics. It is a pity that most of these journals aren't available yet online. Another academic journal to add to this listing is Études Irlandaises. The journal covers various topics in Irish culture and history and its articles are freely available online from 2008 to 2018. A few of the articles are written in French, but most are in English:
https://journals.openedition.org/etudes ... s/?lang=en

As far as the Coercion Suspects, I believe this would be a source of intense pride for both the Suspects during their lifetimes and for any descendants today. Henry Egan of Tullamore signed his letter to the Freeman's Journal as "Henry Egan, late Suspect". There were other newspapers articles, particularly for fundraising campaigns, where donations by ex-suspects and even those in prison, would be reported as such. The descendants of the Egan's of Tullamore even highlight the fact that Henry Egan was a Coercion Suspect when marketing their whiskey brand:
https://www.eganswhiskey.com/legacy.html

James Hishon Moran, mentioned in my prior posting, was a solicitor for National causes and his career certainly did not suffer from being a Coercion Suspect in 1881. Nor did his time in prison dent his enthusiasm for fighting for tenant rights. James H Moran was returned to prison in 1889: "Mr. James H. Moran, solicitor, sentenced to six months' imprisonment on the 8th of April for taking part in an alleged criminal conspiracy to induce persons not to occupy evicted farms, was removed to-day from Tullamore to Limerick under a police escort and a prison warder. Mr. Moran looks very much worse for the treatment he received in Tullamore Jail. He was seen away from here by a large number of sympathisers. Though pale and much cut up, he is cheerful." (The Freeman's Journal, 5 July 1889). Mr. James H. Moran is one of many heroes of the Land War period, even if he doesn't appear in an Irish academic journal.

The two brothers James and Denis Cooney, sons of Johanna Sheedy McNamara and Denis Cooney of Glandree, grandsons of Andrew Sheedy McNamara and Margaret Clancy of Glandree, would spend ten years in Mountjoy Prison (see page 10). The Cooney brothers were considered political prisoners, and treated with respect within the local community upon their release in 1900. Denis Cooney was even brought forward by the Tulla District Council as the Nationalist candidate in the local election for county rate collector just a few months after his release:
CLARE

At the last meeting of the Tulla District Council, the following resolution was proposed by Mr. O'Donnell and seconded by Mr. W. Halpin [a possible relation of Margaret Halpin McNamara and Anne Halpin McNamara?]:

"That, as a vacancy for rate collector has occurred in our Union, we, the Tulla District Council respectfully ask the members of the Clare County Council to give their careful consideration to the case of Mr. Denis Cooney, one of the Glandaree prisoners, who is well known to the County Council, and the County Clare, as having been called for trial to the Sligo Assizes of 1890, when he was convicted by a jury for a crime which was universally believed to be the work of others, and for which the inhuman sentence of twenty years' penal servitude was passed on him. After having undergone almost ten years of the dreadful term, the authorities were pleased to grant his release; and as he is incapable from earning his livelihood in foreign lands, he appeals to the Clare County Council, as a nationalist and democratic body, for a means of sustenance as a remuneration for his unjust imprisonment; that, as a tribute of respect to the ex-prisoner, we call on all intending candidates, who class themselves as Nationalists, to withdraw their names on the day of election of rate collector."

The resolution was unanimously adopted.

Catholic Union and Times, Buffalo, New York (26 July 1900)
And Sheila, thank you once again, awhile back you shared information that William Forster, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, during his trip to the Irish countryside visited Michael Moroney of Leighort at the Tulla Workhouse Hospital. The Graphic, An Illustrated Weekly Newspaper of London included an illustration of this visit in its 18 March 1882 issue. Chief Secretary Forster is the large figure in the middle, of course, and I believe the man on the left is Mr. Hugh Arnold-Forster, his adopted son, who accompanied him on his visit to Tulla. Both men have their hats off and are slightly bowed as a sign of respect. The illustration has dark lighting, but Michael Moroney and Catherine Doyle Moroney, victims of moonlighters, are illuminated in the sunlight that breaks through the one window of the room. Catherine Moroney appears almost saint-like as she kneels at the side of her dying husband's bed and gently rests her hand on his arm. Above the bed is the iconic painting of The Madonna and Child that depicts the Virgin Mary gently caressing the hand of the Baby Jesus. A truly amazing illustration, certainly of a sensitive subject, but I believe, one that is well worth exploring in a brief detour in our search for the missing Civil War soldier Thomas McNamara of Glandree.

The Graphic, An Illustrated Weekly Newspaper, London, 18 Mar 1882.jpg
The Graphic, An Illustrated Weekly Newspaper, London, 18 Mar 1882.jpg (289.71 KiB) Viewed 30318 times

Sduddy
Posts: 1826
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 10:07 am

Re: Information is wanted of Thomas McNamara, of Glandree,

Post by Sduddy » Fri Aug 09, 2019 10:17 am

Hi Jim

I do agree with all those points you make and the examples you give are very good. Yes, most of the men, who were jailed under the Coercion Acts, were looked up to afterwards. I was thinking more of those who were wrongly linked to a murder, or so-called murder.

Thanks for the illustration from The London Graphic. It’s new to me. The artist has used his imagination as to the furnishings in Tulla Workhouse, I think, but it is very well done and must have drawn a lot of attention I’m sure.

I would like to amend my spelling of “descendents” in my last posting, but find that I can’t edit.
But, more importantly, I want to say that I was probably wrong in jumping to the conclusion that there hasn’t been much written about the Land War in Clare (apart from Bodyke) - there may be several Land War incidents mentioned in the articles in Dál gCais and The Other Clare and Sliabh Aughty, but the titles of the articles don’t make it apparent. For instance,'‘The ‘Burned Store’ of Drumbiggle’', by Brian Ó Dálaigh in The Other Clare, Vol. 41 (2017), gives the history of that building and includes a description of a National League meeting held there on Sunday 8th April 1888. This meeting was one of a series of League meetings held to denounce the actions of the government in suppressing the Land League and to oppose the punitive Coercion Act of 1887. “A large detachment of cavalry and several companies of soldiers were drafted into the town along with 100 policemen from other counties”. A charge on the meeting by the soldiers resulted in 40 people being injured, including Mr. Murray, a reporter with the Freeman’s Journal. Mr Hill of the Irish Times had his hat ‘sabered’ by a swinging hussar. 74 people were arrested and marched to the police barracks, but most were released on their own assurances. Only three served sentences: James Halpin, who chaired the meeting, and Patrick Carmody, a relieving officers from Market Street, were sentenced to three months in Limerick Jail. A Stephen Dunleavy, who had briefly addressed the crowd, got 14 days for refusing to sign a bail bond.

One article, that I really should have noted as I was looking through the titles, is this one: ‘“Going to Jail for Boating” – Fr. Laurence Gilligan and the Land War in West Clare’, by Michael Mac Mahon, The Other Clare, Vol. 26 (2002). This gives some good background information on the implementation of the Plan of Campaign*, and describes the dampening effect on it caused by the ban on public meetings:
“It was now becoming clear to the leaders that unless the League quickly took some new initiative to bolster the resolve of the tenants there was a danger that the Plan of Campaign would collapse. The ban on public meetings, for long the life blood of the campaign, had the effect of making the League less visible to the ordinary people, and in some quarters it was perceived to be already on the run …It was precisely at that time that Fr. Laurence Gilligan, C.C., in the Shannonside parish of Kilmurry-McMahon, threw down the gauntlet to the authorities…”
The story goes on to describe a meeting conducted from boats in the Shannon river and the inevitable arrest of Fr. Gilligan when he came ashore. As he was the first priest to be arrested in Clare, the event made it into the papers, which, Mac Mahon believes, is just exactly the result Fr. Gilligan desired:
“On the day of their release, Fr. Gilligan and John Moloney were again met outside the prison by the mayor of Limerick and several of the city aldermen, together with a huge gathering of the citizens headed by two bands. Leaving Limerick by boat, they were greeted at Foynes by a huge flotilla decorated for the occasion before the ‘armada’ crossed the Shannon to the Clare side. There an address of welcome was presented to the two men by the local branches of the League”.
*
“The Plan of Campaign was first published in the United Ireland in October 1886. Essentially the Plan was a device for collective bargaining on individual estates. It could be said to have functioned in much the same fashion as a Trade Union. On the advice of the League, tenants whose rents were considered excessive, were to combine to offer the landlord a reasonable sum. If the amount offered was unacceptable they were to withhold the total rent until he came to terms. The rent thus ‘saved’ was deposited in an ‘estate fund’ set up for the purpose of assisting tenants who might be evicted. Strict discipline was enforced on all members of the combination, and anyone who broke the code was to be subjected to boycott.”

“Going to Jail for Boating” – Fr Laurence Gilligan and the Land War in West Clare”, by Michael Mac Mahon, The Other Clare, Vol. 26 (2002).
Fr. Gilligan is shown in this photograph wearing a hat just like the one Fr. Murphy is wearing in the Bodyke photographs: http://www.clarelibrary.ie/eolas/coclar ... deleur.htm

The Plan of Campaign was not implemented everywhere – it was implemented on 116 estates only (it proved very expensive for the League, in spite of much funding from people in America). The O’Callaghan estate was one such estate, and the Vandaleur estate was another. I don’t know if there were any other estates chosen in County Clare.

By the way, I see that I said that Sliabh Aughty started publication in 1977, but that should be 1989. Sliabh Aughty No. 16 was published in 2016, so there are three issues not shown on that site (https://tbreen.home.xs4all.nl/journals.html), probably because The East Clare Heritage site hasn’t been updated since 2013 and doesn’t show the titles of articles published in those three issues: http://homepage.eircom.net/~eastclarehe ... tions.html.

Yes, I too think it is a pity that more of these articles are not available online. Thanks, by the way, for the link to Études Irlandaises

Sheila

Post Reply