The Other Famine E-Book

Gerard MacAtasney

• Herausgeber: THP Ireland
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 304

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2012

Beschreibung

In the summer of 1822 a bad potato crop and limited employment opportunities created famine conditions in the west and south-west of Ireland.The Other Famine is the first book to examine these events, and specifically their implications for County Leitrim. Beginning with an overview of life in the county from 1800 to 1821, this book looks at landlord–tenant relationships, the standard of living of the poor, and the impact of the typhus fever epidemic of 1816-18. What follows is a detailed analysis of the summer of 1822 in Leitrim, when more than half the population relied on hand-outs from a variety of charitable institutions, particularly the London Tavern Committee. Among the issues explores are how the mechanism of relief was established in the county, the personalities involved and the problems which arose. Finally, the author assessed the role played by landlords, and the reasons why so many people in the county, and the country as a whole, were left dependent on a single crop for their survival. For The Other Famine, MacAtasney has sourced a rich body of material which enables us, for the first time, to gain an in-depth understanding of the effects of the failure of the potato crop in 1822.

Leseprobe

The OtherFamine

The OtherFamine

THE 1822 CRISISIN COUNTY LEITRIM

GERARD MAC ATASNEY

For the generations of Guckian families who have lived inAnnaghasna, Gowel and Mong.

First published in 2010

The History Press Ireland

119 Lower Baggot Street

Dublin 2

Ireland

www.thehistorypress.ie

This ebook edition first published in 2012

All rights reserved

© Gerard Mac Atasney, 2010

The right of Gerard Mac Atasney to be identified as the Author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

This ebook is copyright material and must not be copied, reproduced, transferred, distributed, leased, licensed or publicly performed or used in any way except as specifically permitted in writing by the publishers, as allowed under the terms and conditions under which it was purchased or as strictly permitted by applicable copyright law. Any unauthorised distribution or use of this text may be a direct infringement of the author’s and publisher’s rights, and those responsible may be liable in law accordingly.

EPUB ISBN 978 0 7524 8114 2

MOBI ISBN 978 0 7524 8113 5

Original typesetting by The History Press

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements

Tables

Introduction

Maps

1  Life in Post-Union Leitrim

2  Debating and Vacillating

3  ‘All the appearance of approaching famine’

4  The Central Committee

5  Recovery

6  ‘A merciless proprietorship’?

7  Recrimination and Explanation

Appendices

Endnotes

Bibliography

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am grateful to the following repositories for access to, and permission to quote from, the records in their possession: the Public Records Office, Belfast; the Church of Ireland College of Education, Rathfarnham; the National Archives and National Library, Dublin; the British Library, Guildhall Library and English National Archives, London; the Hampshire Records Office, England. To the staff of the Leitrim County Library in Ballinamore I offer my sincere thanks, especially to Mary Conefrey to whom nothing was too much trouble.

Many thanks to Sean Gill for his patience in drawing and re-drawing the maps in the text. I am indebted to Monsignor Raymond Murray and Prionnsíos Ó Duigneáin for reading drafts of the original text and their subsequent insightful comments, advice and encouragement.

Thanks are due to those friends and relatives who offered accommodation during various research trips, particularly my sister Mary Kellegher and her husband Eamonn Gowel and John McCormack of Chiswick, London.

As always, my gratitude for the understanding and patience shown by my parents, Maura and Peter, and my wife Daphne.

Of course, all efforts at research would be in vain without the support of a committed publisher. Thus, I am indebted to the staff of The History Press, especially Ronan Colgan and Maeve Convery for their faith in this project and their diligence in bringing it to fruition.

Finally, for the first time, I received financial support in the form of a grant to research the material in the book and I would like to thank the Leitrim Development Company Ltd and the Carrick-on-Shannon Heritage Group for their generosity. In particular I am indebted to the efforts of my great friend, John Bredin, a man with a passion for the understanding of the history of his native county.

TABLES

1. Goods distrained on the Bessborough estate, November 1805. (p.23)

2. Employment in Ballinamore, week beginning 13 July 1822. (p.91)

3. Distribution of food to labourers in Ballinamore, June 1822. (p.92)

4. Local public works in the parish of Fenagh. (p.94)

5. Distribution of grants by County Leitrim Central Committee, 15 July 1822. (p.111)

6. Number of distressed in County Leitrim, 22 July-5 August 1822. (p.121)

7. Relief expenditure in County Leitrim, July-August 1822. (p.122)

8. Number of distressed in County Leitrim, 12 August-2 September 1822. (p. 127)

9. Distribution of clothing in County Leitrim, 1823. (p. 153)

10. Rent payments for the townland of Gowel Beg, May 1823-May 1824. (p.178)

11. Sale of distrained goods in Drumsna, 25 May 1825. (p.179)

12. The number of distressed poor in County Leitrim who obtained relief weekly in each parish 23 May-12 September 1822. (p.187)

13. Committee members of Leitrim Bible Society, October 1823. (p.205)

INTRODUCTION

‘Leitrim is a county about which very little is to be found in the papers of the relief agencies’.1

This comment appeared in Professor T.P. O’Neill’s ground-breaking study of the 1822 famine which was submitted as a Master’s Thesis to University College Dublin in 1965. The observation in relation to County Leitrim reveals the limited nature of that study and the fact that his work was largely based on a 346-page report published by the London Tavern Committee in 1823. As with similar reports, this contained much general information and the majority of references to local distress focussed on the large counties of Cork, Limerick, Clare, Galway and Mayo. O’Neill acknowledged the limits of his study when commenting:

The report of the London Tavern Committee contains correspondence from the distressed districts in all matters. These reports do not mention any disputes which arose among the committee members. The reports do not explain how the plans of relief were worked out, nor do they try to give a comprehensive picture of the situation in any place. Only specially selected letters are quoted and so as sources they are not as satisfactory as a collection of the complete correspondence.2

However, the papers from which this report was compiled constitute a huge correspondence and provide the potential for detailed studies of individual counties. Thus, while little mention is made of Leitrim in either the official reports of the London Tavern Committee or the Dublin Mansion House Committee, the hundreds of letters on which these reports are based offer a rich source for the historian.

The non-usage of such papers perhaps explains to a large degree why little has been written about this episode in Irish history. In the general study of the nineteenth century entitled A New History of Ireland volume V: Ireland under the union 1801-70, the 1822 famine warrants less than one page out of a total of 800. However, S.J. Connolly, writing in the same volume, acknowledges that the role of government in the crisis ‘awaits detailed evaluation’.3

The only monograph to focus on this period was Royle’s 1984 article on the 1822 famine on the Aran Islands. Nevertheless, at sixteen pages, it only offered a glimpse of the riches of this archive.4 In fact, when the London Tavern Committee papers have been used, it has been for articles or chapters in books examining Irish society in the years prior to the Great Famine of 1845-52. Thus, in O’Neill’s article in Galway History and Society entitled ‘Minor Famines and Relief in County Galway, 1819-1925’, the distress of 1822 contains fewer than four pages out of a total of twenty-five.5 The most recent usage of the London manuscript occurred in Patrick Hickey’s Famine in West Cork – The Mizen Peninsula Land and People, 1800-1852 Cork (2002). This represents the most detailed examination of the sources to date, but in a book totalling 342 pages, the section on the 1822 famine extends to sixteen pages and is firmly contextualised in the pre-Famine era.6

While this new book utilises a variety of standard sources such as newspapers, parliamentary reports, government outrage papers, etc., it also makes use of previously unused material such as unsorted estate papers in the National Library of Ireland. However, by far the most significant source, and the one on which the majority of the book is based, is the correspondence to the offices of the London Tavern Committee from various clergy and resident gentlemen in County Leitrim from May 1822 until the latter part of 1823. Unlike the general report quoted by O’Neill, analysis of these papers illustrates the detailed working of relief committees in the county, their relationship with the central committee based in Carrickon-Shannon and the tensions arising out of such. The sources also contain a lot of information on the reaction of local landlords to the crisis and the consequences of their response. Finally, correspondence to the London Tavern Committee reveals that religious conflict was never far away from any aspect of Irish society, even in the midst of one of the most severe crises of the early nineteenth century.

1

LIFE IN POST-UNION LEITRIM

On 7 September 1799, almost one year to the day after the Battle of Ballinamuck (8 September 1798), Myles Keon of Keonbrook, Carrick-on-Shannon, wrote to British Chief Secretary for Ireland Lord Castlereagh to inform him of the campaign in counties Leitrim and Roscommon in support of a legislative union between Ireland and Britain. Keon had successfully drawn up a declaration in favour of the move and had it rubberstamped by Dr John Cruise, the Catholic Bishop of Ardagh and Clonmacnois, together with his clergy. This had then been circulated by him to all parish priests in order that they, together with their principal parishioners, could sign it. Keon’s sense of achievement was evident:

The union, some time ago, had not a single advocate in this neighbourhood but myself and I have met with frequent and unpleasant opposition in arguing upon it, not from any Catholics; however, I hope soon to satisfy your Lordship that I have not been an unsuccessful Champion. Either in this County of Leitrim where I live or in the County of Roscommon I have acquired some little reputation and influence among my countrymen and both have been invariably and diligently employed through the whole of the late disorders and rebellion to recall my neighbours that were led astray to loyalty and to confirm those that did not offend in a peaceable and orderly demeanour.1

In the 1770s, Keon had been at the forefront of the campaign to ease the Penal restrictions which had been imposed on Catholics since the late 1690s. As part of the first Relief Act in 1775, which restored some property rights to Catholics, Keon was the first Leitrim Catholic to take the Oath of Allegiance. In the 1790s he was a very active member of the Catholic Committee and fraternised with members of the United Irish Society before that organisation was forced underground and adopted a revolutionary outlook. He believed that Catholics in a union with Britain stood a far better chance of full emancipation than if they remained under a Protestant-only Dublin parliament.2

As well as informing Castlereagh of his efforts to gain support for the proposed measure, he revealed how he had lost a ‘loyal and valiant son’ in consequence of the fatigues he underwent as a volunteer in Captain Rowley’s Corps of Yeomanry before and after the Battle of Ballinamuck.3 By early January 1800, Keon was able to forward a petition with the names of a further 1,500 Catholics in Leitrim and Roscommon to Castlereagh. His total belief in the impending measure was again evident in his stated conviction that the union was ‘the most effectual remedy that can be applied to our national maladies’.4

Keon failed to identify these maladies but a contemporaneous survey of County Leitrim published in 1802, together with a general national survey by Edward Wakefield a few years later, certainly suggested that this area suffered from severe structural economic problems. Mc Parlan’s Statistical Survey of County Leitrim was one of a number of surveys which were produced in the early years of the nineteenth century. Unfortunately for the historians of Leitrim, this was not one of the best, and it contains many generalisations and some debateable conclusions. Indeed, Wakefield comments that, ‘Dr McParlan’s Surveys are found great fault with in Ireland; but he is the only author of a survey, Mr Tighe excepted, who has given a general result’.5 Despite its deficiencies, it offers us a glimpse of the condition of the county just as Keon was campaigning in support of the Act of Union.

McParlan established that the population of the county was 76,630. He achieved this figure by taking the returns of parochial lists and multiplying each by five (the average family unit).6 The largest landowners in the county were absentees and it was noted that only three or four substantial landlords lived within its boundaries.7 Without these natural leaders of society, crucial aspects which could have improved the status of many within the county were absent. For example, there were no farming or agricultural societies to encourage dissemination of new crop methods, breeds of animals, etc. According to Wakefield, this illustrated the extent to which Ireland lagged behind other nations:

The harness of the horses was very rude and bespoke the lowest degree of civilization; it was merely a hay or straw rope or band. The people were busily employed in the hay-harvest tossing hay about with their hands; and had no idea that this operation could be better performed with a fork.8

Similarly, McParlan commented how, ‘no encouragement, of a public or private nature, that I could learn, has been given to any manufacture of this county’. It was noted that the weaving trade was carried on to a considerable extent, while ‘coarse potteries’ were ‘very numerous’ around the villages of Leitrim and Dromahair. The roads system, apart from that in proximity to landlords’ residences, was primitive, and in the parishes of Cloone, Mohill, Inishmagrath and Killargue the roads were ‘shamefully broken and bad’.9

Major differences of opinion emerge between surveyors in matters of food and clothing. McParlan claimed that for a huge proportion of the population, food consisted of potatoes and oaten bread, with butter and eggs, adding that the people enjoyed ‘great feastings of pork, beef and mutton at Christmas and Easter’.10 It is highly unlikely that those enjoying such ‘feastings’ were the labouring population – the vast majority – as their daily wage was only from 4d to 6d per day, often paid by means of the rent of a small parcel of land (conacre). The latter point is given increased force by Wakefield, who commented that meat formed ‘no part of the food of these people’, with livestock being reared solely for sale ‘to the northerns’.11 Indeed, in a general comment, Wakefield remarked that, ‘the poor throughout Connacht live in a state of great wretchedness; oatmeal is a luxury which they seldom taste’.12 In a more specific reference to Leitrim he continued:

The country around the Arigna iron works is inhabited by a people who, according to every appearance, are in a most wretched condition. They are badly clothed and reside in dirty mud cabins, continually filled with smoke. They have as little morality as taste for personal neatness or domestic convenience.13

The question of morality seems to have arisen as a result of a conversation which Wakefield had with the resident agent of the iron works, a Mr Williams, who described the local people as ‘the greatest thieves in the world – quarrelsome and addicted to fighting at patterns or fairs by families or clans’.14 Williams asserted that Arigna was particularly susceptible to trouble, as it was here that the counties of Leitrim, Cavan and Sligo intersected, with crowds from each assembling to fight in the area.15

With respect to clothing, McParlan described this as ‘remarkably neat, clean and strong’, with a coat of frieze, breeches of corduroy and a ‘fancy waistcoat’ being the standard attire.16 However, Wakefield noted that clothing for men consisted of frieze while women wore linsey ‘both manufactured by themselves and a dyed dark snuff colour with oak sawdust, which has a most gloomy appearance’.17

While wages remained at a constant rate of 4d-6d per day, food prices tended to fluctuate wildly. Thus, while McParlan noted that a hundredweight of potatoes and a similar quantity of oaten meal usually sold for one to two shillings and eight shillings respectively, these prices had increased three and fourfold at the time of his survey.18

In addition, as McParlan pointed out, the lack of willingness by landlords to give tenants lengthy leases contributed to the impoverishment of the population:

Short and precarious leases are no doubt a material obstacle to improvement of land; but as to the idea of long leases, which might encourage the tenant to improve, it need not be entertained. Individual landlords will pursue their old habits and interests, so much so, that from that source I am certain nothing can be expected, unless the legislature graciously interfered and enacted leases either for ever, or very long terms, to be made to maintain tenants.19

McParlan’s view was reflected in the remarks of Thomas Bond, agent to the King estate at Fenagh. In total, John King owned ten townlands in the parish of Fenagh – Aughaboneil, Annaghaderg, Corrabarrack, Corragoly, Cornagun, Cornavad, Drumcollop, Garadice and Knockroosk – and Breandrum in the parish of Mohill. On 12 April 1808, Bond informed King:

The tenants at present think you will not dispossess them and have not done any good to the lands nor for themselves not having any certainty of a lease. In fact the estate is like a wilderness and you have now an opportunity of clearing it of them and setting the lands for their full value. You mentioned in your letter to me you would make leases for twenty-one years, if you sell only for that term your lands will not be better at the expiration of the leases that they were twenty years ago for the lands being of a bad quality no person will lay out any money or labour in improving them who have not a long lease.20

As an improvement, Bond recommended leases of thirty-one years, thereby ensuring that tenants would develop the lands ‘for their own advantage’, which in turn would provide them with the means to pay rent.21

Leases ‘at will’, or even for one life, failed to offer any security to tenants who wished to improve their holdings. Extended leases, such as those advocated by Bond, ensured that tenants would not be evicted and could reap the benefits of their labour. However, the events over a twenty-year period on the Bessborough estate illustrated the extent to which tenants could also be exploited by unscrupulous landlords, agents and middlemen.

In 1798, the Earl of Bessborough advertised for the letting of his Leitrim estate, largely centred on the parishes of Fenagh and Kiltubrid. The leases were to consist of terms for three lives. Despite an alternative offer from Richard Irwin Esq., a native of Drumsillagh and one of the wealthiest men in the parish of Carrigallen, to rent the estate at £700 per annum, the earl decided, on the advice of his agent and receiver of rents, Andrew Caldwell, to let the land to those tenants already occupying it. This he agreed to do with leases based on the lives of King George III’s three daughters.22 The tenants paid rent to Bessborough under the terms of this agreement until May 1803, and due to the longevity of the leases, they made ‘valuable and lasting improvements’ to the land, which had been generally regarded as being ‘wild and uncultivated’. Thus, they built good farmhouses, while at the same time improving the land through draining, gravelling and manuring it, all at their own expense.23

Richard Irwin still had designs on the estate, especially in light of such improvements having significantly enhanced its value. On 1 May 1803, Bessborough issued quit notices to the tenants at the behest, they alleged, of Irwin and his colleague Robert Lyons, a solicitor based in Dublin. To facilitate such, a new agent, Peter Walsh, was appointed and the tenants were informed that all future rents were to be paid to him. The tenants stood by their agreement of 1798 and in a sworn affidavit dated 10 July 1805 maintained:

… that Richard Irwin, who is in the revenue, availed himself of the power which he had by means of an armed force to turn some of depts [the tenantry] out of possession of several holdings and by violence and threats procured some of depts to execute some paper-writing of the nature of which depts were then and still are ignorant and say that the greater number of depts never signed said paper-writing, nor any paper relinquishing their just claims to their respective leases.24

The price for those not agreeing to pay rent to the new agent is obvious from the following list of those who had their goods seized in order to meet some of their arrears:

GOODS DISTRAINED ON THE BESSBOROUGH ESTATE, NOVEMBER 1805

Source: National Archives Dublin, Bessborough Papers, M 3374.

Petition on behalf of tenants of the Bessborough estate, County Leitrim, 1809. (Courtesy of the National Archives of Ireland.)

On investigation, the tenants found that a memorial in the Registry of Deeds dated 2 July 1803 showed that Robert Irwin and Robert Lyons had obtained a lease from Bessborough of several parts of the estate, including the land leased by the tenants.25 This transaction had never been made known to the latter and they immediately lodged a bill of complaint in the Court of Exchequer against the Earl of Bessborough. Acting under the advice of their attorney, William St John, fifty-nine tenants served Bessborough with subpoenas in June 1809 but by February 1812 he had failed to answer such.26

St John threatened to issue proceedings for contempt against the earl and feelings ran so high that an effigy of Robert Lyons was shot at and burned in Drumshanbo. The various attorneys acting for Bessborough felt that the tenants were being directed by St John for his own ends and argued that if he were removed they would settle. To this end, they brought a prosecution against St John, alleging it was he who was responsible for the acts involving Lyons’s effigy. The prosecution failed and St John was acquitted.27

Lancelot Fisher, solicitor to Bessborough, argued that ‘until they [the tenants] suffer on the score of the arrears they owe they will not be brought to their senses’.28 He also warned him that he would remain in contempt of court until he answered the outstanding bills against him. Informing him that this would cost £680, he also opined that years of litigation lay ahead. He outlined how only two tenants had agreed to the new terms and suggested that in order to secure further agreements it would be advisable to inform all tenants of the ‘vast sums’ to which they were liable. He also revealed that it was his intention to vigorously pursue the ‘ringleaders of Mr St John’s faction’, in the knowledge that they would be unable to pay such an amount.29

This tactic appeared to gain some success, as a number of tenants accepted leases under Irwin and Lyons. Of the twenty-two who did so, one was Fr Bartholemew McKeon, who appears to have actually gained under this agreement. A document notes his holding as follows:

Fr Bartholemew McKeon in Drumshanbo including one piece of land (13 acres and one perch) ‘lately Morans, still disputed by Bernard Moran who was forceably [sic] dispossessed by McKeon’. Also another plot (38 perches) ‘lately Darby Moran’s house, now Bartholemew McKeon’s and claimed in like manner’.30

Perhaps mindful of Fisher’s advice on potential interminable litigation, the Earl of Bessborough came to an arrangement with St John whereby the tenants agreed to have their bills against him dismissed in return for leases for twenty-one years from 1 November 1812 at the same rents which they had agreed with Lyons and Irwin in 1804. Crucially, Bessborough agreed to give up all claims to arrears of rent owed by those tenants agreeing to sign.31

Pamphlet outlining grievances of tenants on the Leitrim estate of Lord Bessborough, 1817. (Courtesy of the British Library.)

However, Bessborough’s legal representatives anticipated that, ‘some of the tenants will reject the terms altogether and say that St John had without their authority signed consents to dismiss their bills and thereby involve Lord Bessborough in further litigation’. Nonetheless, they also noted that ‘however disadvantageous the terms may be it is anxiously desired on the part of Lord Bessborough that it may be ratified and the litigation terminated’.32 Yet Bessborough’s representatives felt it was not a good deal:

Much advantage has as we conceive been surrendered and much hazard of future litigation created by this arrangement entered into at the moment when Mr St John was we think completely in the power of Lord Bessborough and when the tenants must either have come into terms or have paid to the receiver the large arrears due to Lord Bessborough.33

Their apprehension stemmed from their dealings with St John, and although they maintained that if the agreement was ‘fairly acted upon’ it would be beneficial to Bessborough, nevertheless, ‘his Lordship’s English advisors would probably have been deterred from entering into it, if they had the same experience that we have had, of the character and conduct of Mr St John’.34

William St John had played a key role in this deal by ensuring that the new rents were ‘fairly and impartially equalized or apportioned’ by means of a new independent survey carried out under his direction.35

However, for those tenants who did not sign up for this deal, and relinquish their leases for three lives from 1798, the prospects were not so good. They were now to be considered as ‘holding at will’ or only from year to year and in effect were liable to eviction at any time.

Obviously St John realised that with some tenants accepting the deal and others rejecting it, there would be divisions on the estate. He appealed to them in his role as their legal representative:

Bear no ill will to each other, or to any individual amongst you, in consequence of any misunderstanding of differences which the late lawsuits excited or occasioned. Let my example, being that of rendering equal justice to all (which you see I have done by equalising and apportioning your rents impartially, and placing you all again as one family under a paternal landlord), teach you respectively to live in the same harmony as if no differences had ever existed.36

However, the consequences of this deal were being felt by those ‘tenants at will’ (not holding leases) more than three years later, and in early 1817, Fr Dominick Fanning, parish priest of Murhane, addressed a letter to various members of the British aristocracy outlining the claims of ‘three hundred poor families’ to their farms as outlined in the original agreement of 1798. He commented how he was, ‘only actuated by the common feelings of humanity in my interference on the subject; and really were the matters explained … they would pourtray [sic] a scene of persecution, unrivalled for turpitude in the annals of History’.37 He went on to excoriate the part played by Irwin and Lyons in the tribulations of the previous two decades:

The truth is that persons resident in our own country, seeking to aggrandise themselves by the ruin of those poor people involved Lord Bessborough in litigation with his tenantry; in this novel and unprecedented system of litigation and no object in view but that of depriving an honest and industrious peasantry of their habitations by defeating their agreements which they have for many years contended to establish … I am satisfied that it is from the representations of some of those local intermeddlers who are like snakes crouching in our grass that a paternal and bountiful landlord has been estranged from looking into the wants and sufferings of his tenantry.38

The experience of the Fenagh and Kiltubrid tenants reflected that, for many, life was a perpetual struggle against those who sought to exploit them through high rents, tithes payable to the Church of Ireland and priests’ dues. Such a state of affairs allowed for what one source referred to as ‘the parish of Fenagh legislators’ to take a hand.39 For example, on the night of 28 October 1806, the chief tithes collector for the parish of Mohill, James McKenna, was confronted in his home in Drumkilla by ‘a vast number of men armed with muskets’. They threw down a book and told him to ‘swear such things as they proposed’. They demanded to know where his books for this and the previous harvest were and told him ‘not to view the tithe of flax and hay’. He was also forced to swear that he would not value either of the latter.40 Thomas Sandford, writing from Drumkeerin, informed the authorities of events in his district in October of the same year:

Two nights ago they put up a Proclamation on the Roman Catholic Chapel door filled with the most terrifying menaces against the Parish Priest Cassidy, one of the Pattersons, McLoghlin, and Kills on whom they promise to inflict punishments which they set forth will be remembered by the existing generation. The persons so menaced appear in great terror and the priest is, he says, about to leave the parish.41

This event illustrated the non-sectarian nature of such groups, an aspect further highlighted by reports of a similar nature from Cloonclare. There, on the morning of 19 September 1807, Francis Mc Guire, parish priest of Cloonclare, was awoken at 1a.m. by two persons dressed with white shirts over their clothes, one armed with a bayonet. The leader referred to himself as ‘Captain Right’ and told the priest to observe the fifty men at his command. Thomas McGuire of Laghty was also visited by the same group, who made him swear not to buy his tithes from any proctor or pay priests more than one-penny offerings. When Michael Trevor of Cullentragh refused to take the oath, he was ‘dragged by the breast and hit with the socket of a bayonet’. In the same townland, Denis Kearny only took the oath after the crowd threatened to shoot him, while Thomas McHugh of Loughros was made swear not to pay any more than one penny to priests or give them any of his corn.42

Similar events occurred in the parish of Drumlease in the following year. There, in the townlands of Greenaugh and Stone Park, several houses were entered at night and the occupants confronted by a number of men disguised and wearing white shirts. They were made to swear not to pay the local priest more than one penny at funerals and not to provide him with oats, butter, potatoes, meal or yarn. Although nobody was injured, the fact that some of the men carried cards and rubbed them together –threatening to ‘card’ the occupants – was enough to ensure compliance with their wishes.43

Threatening notice on the Waldron estate, Drumsna, c.1818. (Courtesy of the National Library of Ireland.)

In 1811, Brigadier Major Marshall reported how cattle had been houghed (hamstrings cut) and horses taken from fields in Carrigallen by the ‘Nightly Banditti’. He also noted the presence of people in the locality who were ‘reported to have been obliged to quit the country previous to the Rebellion of 1798’. In an earlier communication he had similarly observed that, while the county was ‘perfectly quiet’, the people were nonetheless ‘rebelliously inclined’.44 However, the nocturnal actions outlined had little to do with rebellious activities and more to do with social control. While most focussed on the price of food, payment of tithes, etc., other cases demonstrated that land occupancy was strictly regulated. For example, in April 1808, the house of Terence McTernan in the townland of Townalory in the parish of Killargue was broken into by a group of men demanding to know the whereabouts of a ‘strange woman’. When the woman, Nancy Coil (Coyle), appeared, she was dragged around the floor and beaten with ‘rods’ and forced to swear she would never come and live on that land. McTernan was also beaten for ‘harbouring’ her. This is just one of many such cases which occurred throughout the county.45

A frustrated Duke Crofton lamented how, ‘so great a portion of the tenantry are sworn to be faithful to these Threshers that it is nearly impossible to get anyone to come forward with information against them’.46 Not surprisingly, then, when the local magistrate attempted to prosecute those responsible for these events throughout Leitrim, none of the victims could (or would) identify them. The sense of threat was evident in comments made by Robert Lloyd, new agent on John King’s Fenagh lands:

The tenants will not pay any rents, nor will they till the ground, nor will they give possession – if they are ejected they will take defence separately and if there comes an habere (an attempt to obtain tenure) they will give possession and re-possess themselves at night and no person will bid for their lands (that is who dare bid for them).47

The hardship of the tenantry was in stark contrast to the life of opulence enjoyed by those in receipt of their rents. For example, on 12 December 1814, John West wrote from Florence to his father in Cloone, informing him of events on his travels to Italy:

When I crossed the Alps into Italy in the most delightful weather I was ignorant of the change a few weeks should make in those beautiful passes where there was then nothing but Spring and the finest scenery in nature and which are now blocked up by frosts and snows that seem to require a thousand suns to give the mountains the same appearance.48

West found that Italy ‘excels every other country in nothing else so much as the beauty and splendour of its buildings’ and after visiting the Cathedral of Milan informed his father, ‘it is called the eighth wonder of the world and almost deservedly’.49

The Wests, although a prominent family around Cloone, were minor gentry and did not move in the same social circles as the major landowners of the county. One of these was the Clements family, with their demesne at Lough Rynn, just outside Mohill. In 1815, the family embarked on a seven-month holiday to France and throughout this period, one of the girls, Caroline Clements, kept a detailed diary of the trip. On arriving at a hotel in Paris on 29 September she commented:

Our apartments in the hotel would be very comfortable for a smaller family but they are not large enough for us. They are beautifully furnished and there are very pretty clocks in each room. Papa has only taken them for a week during which time he hopes to be able to get others.50

Within a week they had obtained ‘very pretty and comfortable’ new apartments in Place Vendrome and, as well as visiting sites such as the Louvre and the Palace of Versailles, they enjoyed a healthy social life, as the following entries in her diary indicate:

10 November 1815

We went this evening to a ball at Lady Castlereagh’s where I saw the Duke of Wellington, whom I had never seen before. The Prince of Bavaria was also there. I danced with Lilly before supper; after supper I danced with a Greek gentleman of Mama’s acquaintance and then with Mademoiselle de Roncheroi. Lilly danced the whole evening with Mr Hamilton.

11 November 1815

Being much fatigued by the Ball last night we did not get up till late this morning.

7 December 1815

We went to Mme de Talkegrand’s this evening where we amused ourselves very much and danced a great deal.

8 December 1815

Went this evening to the Opera.

12 December 1815

We had a larger party than usual this evening – we had a fiddle and we danced all the evening.

19 December 1815

We had a soirée as usual this evening – we had a fiddler and danced.

Just before Christmas, Caroline had her birthday and described the presents she received:

23 December 1815

This is my birthday. Mama gave me a very pretty necklace of blue and white, Maria gave me a glass basket, Lilly a very pretty fan and Charles a perfume sachet.

Two days later the presents were again being distributed:

25 December 1815

Papa gave me today for a Christmas box a ring of turiguoises [sic] and pearls and a Louis (gold coin). He gave to Maria a ring of Emeralds surrounded with pearls and two Louis.51

Meanwhile, for those living on the lands of such gentry in Leitrim new difficulties appeared on the horizon.

Typhus Fever Epidemic, 1816-18

The summer of 1816 had been unusually cold and wet, leaving the crops in a very backward state. Towards the end of September the weather had improved for a few days and hopes were entertained that most of the crops would be saved and the potato crop, if not as abundant as the previous year’s, would at least prove sufficient to meet the people’s needs. But the fine spell of weather was short-lived. The September sunshine gave way to incessant wind and rain, which persisted into early October, causing widespread concern for the fate of the harvest.52