Will – Page 19 – Forgotten Victorians

House of Commons debate on Catholic Marriage 1830.

January 9, 2017 WillLeave a comment

HC Deb 04 May 1830 vol 24 cc396-401

Mr O’Connell rose, he said, to move for leave to bring in a Bill to render valid, in certain cases, the marriages of Roman Catholics in England by a Catholic Clergyman, and to abolish in Ireland certain penalties imposed on Catholic Priests for celebrating marriages between Catholics and Protestants. He wished, if possible, to earn the approbation of Gentlemen on the other side, or at least to avoid their censure, by being very brief upon this subject at present, trespassing on the attention of the House only to an extent sufficient to make his intentions understood. The object of the proposed measure was, to render valid, in certain cases, the marriage of Roman Catholics in England, and to abolish the penalties imposed on Catholic Priests in Ireland for solemnizing marriages between Protestants and Catholics. There were two different points for consideration, on which the House might be disposed to come to different decisions. The House might be ready enough to amend the law of Ireland, without wishing to interfere with that of England. He did not refer to a law making the marriages of Roman Catholics valid in themselves; in that respect but little alteration was desirable, for marriages celebrated by a Roman Catholic priest, between Roman Catholic parties, were perfectly valid at present. Such marriage entitled a female to dower, and conveyed the ordinary interest in property to the children. That law extended in Ireland also to marriages celebrated between Protestant Dissenters by clergymen of their own communion. There were three distinct laws relating to marriages in Ireland:—first, for marriages celebrated by clergymen of the Established Church; secondly, for marriages by Protestant Dissenting ministers; and thirdly, for marriages celebrated by Roman Catholic priests, which are valid only when both parties are Roman Catholics. That being the slate of the law, his object was to mitigate the penalties for any violation of that law by a Roman Catholic priest. There was no penalty on clergymen of the Established Church for marrying persons of different religious persuasions, none on Dissenters—upon the Roman Catholics alone was any penalty inflicted. He would briefly notice some of the statutes which authorised these penalties. The first Act to which he would allude, was passed for the purpose of preventing the taking away and marrying children against the will of their guardians—a very (it object for a penal law, against which he had no design to make any objections. But in that Act, which was passed a great many years back, after prohibiting Catholic clergymen from celebrating such marriages, it was enacted, that any Roman Catholic clergyman who should celebrate such marriages, or marry any party or parties, knowing that they are of different persuasions, should incur all the penalties attached to the law. The first punishment was death; but a particular clause was introduced, providing that it should only be inflicted when the clergyman knew that one of the parties was not a Catholic. The next Statute to which he would call attention, was the 8th Anne, c. 11, s. 26, which continued these penalties. The House would recollect that the Roman Catholic clergyman was guilty of no offence unless one of the parties was a Protestant. The 26th Section enacted that Roman Catholic priests shall not many parties, when one of them has been of the Protestant religion, unless they get from the Protestant minister a certificate, certifying that the party was not a Protestant at the time of the marriage. This, however, raised a legal presumption that the priest knew that the party had been a Protestant, and to avoid that, he got from the Protestant clergyman a certificate, stating the negative. But the Act gave no means of forcing the Protestant clergy man to give that certificate, and if the priest could not get the Protestant clergyman to certify this under his hand and seal, and he should marry the parties, he fell under the penalties provided by the Act; that was not a state in which the law should be allowed to remain. By the 1st George 1st it was made felony without benefit of clergy for Popish priests to celebrate a marriage between two parties, one a reputed Protestant, and the other a Papist. When he coupled these statutes together, he found that in the one, knowledge was presumed, unless a certificate were produced; and that the other made it a capital felony to marry, not a Catholic and Protestant, but reputed Protestants, unless a certificate were produced, showing that they were not Protestants. This statute enabled Justices of the Peace to summon any persons, suspected of having been guilty of the offence mentioned, before them; and upon refusal to enter into recognizance’s, to punish them by imprisonment for the space of three years. This inquisitorial punishment was of so serious a nature, that it ought to be altered. He knew two instances of it, one of which occurred at Londonderry, and the other at Long ford, where there were now four persons in gaol under the provisions of this section; so that it was by no means a dead letter. The next he would mention was the 19th of George 2nd, c. 13, which declared void every marriage celebrated by Catholic priests, between Catholics and Protestants, where either party had been a Protestant twelve months preceding the Marriage: and by 23 George 2nd it was enacted, that as the marriage was not valid, the clergyman celebrating it should be hanged;—that Act continued in force to this day, with this difference, that by the Relief Bill, 33 George 3rd, c. 21, intended to repeal the former Act, it was enacted, that such a marriage should be invalid, and it ordered that a fine of 500l. should be paid by any Roman Catholic clergyman who should celebrate the marriage of a Catholic and Protestant. He must inform the House, that the question came before the Court of King’s Bench in Ireland, when Lord Kilwarden was sitting as Judge, and he determined that the latter punishment did not remove the penalty of death; and the ground for his opinion was, that the one Act of Parliament had used the word “reputed,” and that the other had not used that expression. So that, according to law, a Popish Priest, guilty of the offence mentioned in the Statute, might be hanged in the first instance, and fined afterwards! This was really too bad. Having thus stated briefly to the House the law on the subject, he might, perhaps, be asked what he proposed to do. To abolish the penalty of death altogether he would answer. He proposed to limit the fine to a small amount, and to remove the penalty in all cases, where the parties were Catholics at the time of the marriage, and not to go back one year previous to the marriage. That was the alteration which he proposed to make in the law of marriage in Ireland. He did not wish to carry the Relief Bill one particle further than it was carried already; but he wished to put out of the Statute-book, that capital felony, which, in his opinion, ought not to remain. He wished further to make the offence punishable only when the priest had a knowledge of the religion of the parties, when the malus animus on his part was manifest. He wished to state to the House, that he had heard of instances in which Catholic clergymen had been betrayed into the performance of the marriage ceremony, by designing persons, from sinister motives, and was acquainted with one of great respectability who was obliged to flee the country for two years precisely under such circumstances. Two persons went to him, and alleged that they were Catholics, and got themselves married, for the mere purpose of afterwards prosecuting him. And it was not until some time afterwards, when the conduct of the parties was discovered, that the clergyman was enabled to return. There was another part of this subject about which he felt considerable anxiety, that was, the marriage of Catholics in England; he did not allude to the marriage of the richer Catholics, but to their poorer brethren, many of whom came from Ireland, and when they were in their own country, had been in the habit of seeing their brothers, sisters, and all their relations married by Catholic priests, and they could not believe that marriages celebrated by Catholic priests in England were invalid. He begged to inform the House, that a Catholic clergyman could refuse to celebrate a marriage, when required, without a breach of the Canon Law. What was the consequence of this in England? Why the husband could desert the wife—many melancholy instances of which had lately occurred, and all the children were illegitimate. He felt, however, that he had said enough on this subject, and would trouble the House no further. He should wish to bring in a bill to allow all Protestant Dissenters, as well as Catholics, to marry according to the forms of their own religion, but he would not introduce a clause on that subject, if the Legislature should be adverse to such a measure. He hoped that he might then be allowed to bring in the Bill, and he would take another opportunity of entering more fully into the subject. In conclusion, the hon. and learned Gentleman moved for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the laws respecting Marriages celebrated by Roman Catholic Priests.

The Solicitor General expressed his satisfaction at hearing that it was not the intention of the hon. and learned Member to disturb in any manner the Catholic Relief Bill of last year. He differed from the learned Gentleman in supposing that it would not be possible to bring in a Bill to apply to the marriage of Roman Catholics in England, which should not include all Dissenters; and he should object to any bill that was not of a general nature. As the hon. Member had given up that part of his Motion, and as there were many of the regulations which the hon. Member had suggested as to Ireland which appeared likely to be useful, he was not prepared to oppose the Motion. As he understood the matter, the Act of 1793 was intended to get rid of the severe penalties attached to the offence of celebrating illegal marriages, leaving no other penalty than the fine of 500l., but as there was a doubt on the subject, it was proper that that doubt should be cleared up. Nobody, he was sure, would be ready to carry the law into execution, which sentenced the priest to death for celebrating such marriages. Understanding, therefore, that the hon. member for Clare limited the Motion to bringing in a Bill declaratory of the law, he should most certainly not oppose it.

Lord Leveson Gower said, it was not his duty to oppose, but to promote the hon. and learned Gentleman’s Motion. He wished, however, to reserve his opinions on the subject, till a subsequent stage of the Bill, and he should certainly offer no opposition to it in that stage.

Sir J. Brydges said, he would not oppose the introduction of the Bill, but conceiving that after what was called the obsolete Statutes were repealed, there would be some motion to enact different laws, he should certainly oppose the Bill at its subsequent stages.

Mr. North supported the Motion. The Bill was to amend the civil law respecting marriage, and nobody who knew what that law was, whatever political opinions he might profess, would oppose that Bill. The hon. and learned Member, as he understood, did not intend to alter the law. But at present, the punishment to which a Catholic clergyman was supposed to be liable for celebrating illegal marriages was nothing less than death. In the opinion of many celebrated men, and in the opinion of an humble individual, himself, though his was a very conscientious opinion, the Relief Bill passed by the Irish Parliament in 1793 repealed the law inflicting this punishment. The punishment was no longer death—it was not transportation—it was a fine of 500l.; and the first object of the hon. member for Clave was, to reduce that penalty still further. He differed from the hon. member for Clare as to the point of determining the religion of the parties at the moment of celebrating the marriage, for it had happened to him to know that many parties went before the Catholic clergyman, and declared that they were Catholics, when it was known to the priest that they were born of Protestant parents, and had been at Church but a few months before: they said they had been converted. On this point, therefore, he disagreed with the hon. member for Clare; but in the general features of the Bill he concurred with him.

Mr Croker was in hopes, that ere long something would be done to make the marriage law similar throughout the three kingdoms. It was, in his opinion, a most monstrous anomaly, that the marriage law, which was the very foundation of society, on which depended the rights and fortunes of all classes of citizens living under the same general scheme of policy, subject to the same system of Government,—it was a monstrous anomaly that this law, the foundation of the whole society, should not be the same for every part of the kingdom, and every description of persons. At present, however, this law was so extravagant, and so extraordinary, that there was now a case of marriage pending, as the learned Gentleman opposite knew, which, after the highest court of Scotland had declared the couple to be legally married, and their children legitimate, was about, he believed, to be set aside by a still higher authority here; and the children were to be declared illegitimate. He did not mean to enter into the question as to Ireland, but he did hope that his Majesty’s Ministers, or some Gentleman of talents and weight in the House, would bring the state of the marriage-law under discussion, and would enable the people to know, at all times and places, whether they were legally married or not, and whether their offspring were legitimate or illegitimate.

Leave given to bring in the Bill; and Mr. Q’Connell and Mr. Jephson were ordered to bring it in.

Joseph Lescher, Esq’s house at West End, Hampstead 1827

December 5, 2016August 17, 2023 WillLeave a comment

john_constable_-_a_view_on_hampstead_heath_with_harrow_in_the_distance_1822 — A View on Hampstead Heath with Harrow in the distance. 1822 John Constable. copyright VAM.

From the size of it, the house is not that much smaller than Kenwood.

Description for the house when it was put up for sale in 1827:

The late Residence of Joseph Lescher, Esq., deceased, delightfully situated at West-end, Hampstead, a convenient distance from London, and a cheerful ride through the Regents Park to the City; comprised a brick-built family house, containing ? bed chambers, dressing rooms and closets, a dining parlour 27 feet by 17 feet, a drawing room 36 feet by 17 feet, breakfast parlour and hall, and offices of every description, double coach-houses, and stabling for 6 horses, wash house, laundry, and servants rooms.

The gardens are highly productive, with shrubbery walks, lawn, greenhouse and grapery, melon ground, and fish ponds, together with two paddocks of rich land, containing altogether upwards of 6 acres. Copy hold of the Manor of Hampstead, and 4 acres of leasehold adjoining, with a farm yard and buildings.

Captain Lord Petre, Funeral at Thorndon 1915

November 16, 2016 WillLeave a comment

chapel ThorndonPark — The mortuary chapel, Thorndon Hall

The funeral of Captain Lord Petre took place at Thorndon Hall, Essex, on Saturday, where the body had arrived that morning from France. The service took place in the private mortuary chapel. The coffin was covered with the Union Jack, on which lay Lord Petre’s coronet, sword, his Coldstream bearskin, and wreaths of white flowers from his wife, mother, and sisters. A party of non-commissioned officers of the Coldstream Guards, under Lieut. Elwes, were present and acted as bearers. At the entrance to the chapel a large detachment of the Irish Guards were lined up, under the command of Lieut.-Col. the Earl of Kerry. The little chapel was filled with members of the family and outside were grouped the large gathering of tenantry, servants, and friends. The service was a Low Mass of Requiem, celebrated by the Rev. Father C. Kuypers, chaplain to Lord Petre, in presence of the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, who gave the absolutions. The music was rendered by some members of the Westminster Cathedral choir. At the conclusion of the Mass, the buglers of the Irish Guards sounded the “Last Post.” The tenantry and friends then entered the chapel and passed in front of the coffin, white flowers being placed round the mass of wreaths by children of the Thorndon Hall School. The coffin was then lowered into the vault. The chief mourners were :—Lady Petre, widow ; Julia Lady Petre, the Hon. Barbara Petre and the Hon. Clare Petre, mother and sisters ; the Hon. John and Lady Margaret Boscawen, father-in-law and mother-in-law ; the Hon. Mary Petre and the Hon. Teresa Petre, cousins ; Lieut.-Col. Oswald Turville Petre, Mr. Lawrence Petre, Mr. Loraine Petre, Lieut. Bernard Petre, Lieut. Jack Petre, and the Rev. Ralph Trafford, cousins ; Mr. and Mrs. Sebastian Petre ; Major and Lady Henry Forbes ; Mr. and the Hon. Mrs. F. Stapleton Bretherton ; Mrs. Van Cutsen ; Mrs. R. Feilding and Miss Bretherton. Among others present were : Canon Norris, Brentwood ; the Rev. R. Grant, chaplain at Ingatestone Hall.

REQUIEM AT WESTMINSTER CATHEDRAL.

Whilst the funeral was taking place at Thorndon a Requiem was celebrated at Westminster Cathedral by Mgr. Howlett. Several of the Cathedral clergy were present in the sanctuary. At the termination of the Mass, at which the music was rendered by the Cathedral choir under the direction of Dr. Terry, the buglers of the Brigade of Guards sounded “The Last Post.” Among those assisting at the Mass were : Audrey Lady Petre, aunt, the Hon. Mrs. Albert Petre, Miss Petre, Mrs. Henry Petre, Lieut. the Earl of Lisburne (representing Major-General Sir Francis Lloyd, commanding the London District), Lady Mary Howard, Colonel Drummond Hay (Coldstream Guards), the Hon. Walter Maxwell, the Hon. J. Maxwell-Scott, Countess de Montholon, Sir Henry Howard, Count and Countess de Torre Diaz, and many others.—R.I.P.

The above text was found on p. 12, 16th October 1915 in “The Tablet: The International Catholic News Weekly.” Reproduced with kind permission of the Publisher. The Tablet can be found at http://www.thetablet.co.uk .

The Funeral of Mary Theresa, 13th Lady Petre in 1895

November 16, 2016 WillLeave a comment

The funeral of the Right Hon. Mary Theresa Lady Petre, widow of William Bernard, 12th Baron Petre, and mother of William Joseph, the 13th Baron Petre, and of Bernard Henry Philip, the 14th and present Baron, whose death we recorded last week, took place on Saturday last in the Mortuary Chapel at Thorndon Park.

Lady Petre was 72 years of age, and was the eldest daughter of the Hon. Charles Thomas Clifford, of Irnharn Hall, Lincolnshire, son of Charles, the 6th Lord Clifford. She was married on September 26, 1843, and lost her husband in the July of 1884. She had been suffering for some time past from repeated attacks of bronchitis. She leaves three sons—the present Lord Petre, the Hon. Philip Benedict Joseph Petre, and the Hon. Joseph Lucius Henry Petre ; and eight daughters—the Countess of Granard ; the Hon. Mrs. Isabella Mary Bretherton, of Fareham ; the Hon. Margaret Mary Petre, a nun ; the Hon. Catherine Mary Lucy Petre, the Hon. Theresa Mary Louisa Petre, a nun ; the Hon. Mary Winifrede Petre, a Sister of Charity ; the Hon. Eleanor Mary Southwell Trafford, of Wroxham Hall; and the Hon. Monica Mary Butler Bowdon, of Lancaster. Nearly all of these were able to be present during Lady Petre’s last illness. Her ladyship, who was conscious to the last, received all the rites of Holy Church.

Although it is some years since the neighbourhood of Thorndon was deprived of the Petre family, by reason of the disastrous fire which broke up their home there, the memory of Lady Petre, as well as that of her noble lord and children, lives fresh and is cherished by both rich and poor. The various charities which were instituted during the residence of her ladyship and her late husband have been maintained by the late (13th) Baron and the present Lord Petre. Nor was her ladyship’s charity confined to the country. In London she instituted, among other things, a creche, or day nursery, for poor little children, in imitation of the same institution in Paris. She took a lively interest in all Catholic philanthropic work and her loss will be severely felt.

From the time of her decease until the coffin was removed from Belmont, Bournemouth, the residence of her ladyship, the body was laid in state in the drawing-room, and masses for the dead were said by the Rev. Father Cooney, of Bournemouth. The remains were removed from Belmont at -5.30 on Friday evening, and were conveyed in a hearse by the 6.40 p.m. train from East Bournemouth to Waterloo station. At Waterloo the hearse was taken from the train, and the remainder of the journey to Thorndon was accomplished by road. The coffin was accompanied from Bournemouth by the Hon. Philip and the Hon. Joseph Petre. Thorndon Hall was reached soon after two o’clock on Saturday morning, and the coffin was placed in the mortuary chapel, a short service being held. Mortuary candles were lighted round the coffin, and during the remainder of the night it was watched by members of the congregation and the nuns at Thorndon.

The remains of her ladyship were enclosed in an elm shell lined with white satin, a second elm case, a lead coffin, and an outer coffin of mahogany, covered with crimson velvet. On the lid was a full length brass cross with steps, the base bearing the following inscription : “Mary Teresa, Lady Petre, widow of William Bernard, 12th Lord Petre, Baron of Writhe, born 1st Septr., 1823, died 31st Decr., 7895. R.I.P.” A small brass plate at the head bore a similar inscription. The brass medieval handles had a coronet over each. At each corner were brass clasps. The coffin was covered by a black pall, with a white cross, white fleur-de-lys on black border, and the family escutcheon at the head. The Norwich express, leaving London at to o’clock, was stopped at Brentwood on Saturday morning for the convenience of the mourners. Most of the mourners arrived by this train, and were driven over to Thorndon Hall. The funeral service took place in the Mortuary Chapel, which had been enlarged by the erection of a marquee at the entrance. This work was carried out by Messrs. H. and T. C. Godfrey, of Chelmsford. The marquee and the passage leading to it were hung ,with black and white drapery. There was a large attendance of the tenantry and those employed on the estate at the service, which was of a most solemn character. The musical portion was arranged by the Rev. C. J. Moncrieff Smyth, of Warley, and was rendered by the following members of the London Priest Choir : The Revv. G. B. Cox, H. Cafferata, E. Pennington, C. Turner, G. Curtis, J. Butler, E. Smith, and J. Heditch. Requiem Mass was sung by the Right Rev. Mgr. Crook, chaplain at Thorndon Hall. The Rev. Edmund Meyer, of lngatestone Hall, was deacon, and the Rev. Dean T. F. Norris, of Brentwood, was sub-deacon. The master of ceremonies was the Rev. W. H. Cologan, of Lilystone Hall, Stock. After the Requiem, Mass Cardinal Vaughan, who was assisted by the Vicar General .(Canon Barry), gave the Absolution. The coffin was then deposited in its last resting-place between those, of her ladyship’s husband and son.

The family mourners were as follows : Lord Petre, the Hon. Philip Benedict Joseph and Mrs. Petre, the Hoh. Joseph Lucius Henry Petre, the Countess of Granard, Mr. and the Hon. Mrs. Stapleton Bretherton, Mr. E. and the Hon. Mrs. Trafford, Colonel and the Hon. Mrs. Butler Bowden, the Hon. Catherine Mary Lucy Petre, Winifred Lady Howard’ of Glossop, Miss Blanche Petre, the Rev. Augustus Petre, the Rev. John Petre, the Hon. Frederick Petre, Mr. Sebastian H. Petre, the Count de Torre Diaz, and Mr. Philip W. Colley. Among the congregation in the chapel were Colonel Maguire, Colonel Wood, J.P. Captain Digby Neave, J.P., Colonel Disney, Mr. R. J. VValmesley, the Rev. C. Earle (rector of Ingatestone), the Rev. H. J. Tilley (Romford), Mr. J. F. Lescher, J.P., Messrs. F. J. Coverdale (agent), F. Coverdale, C. Gray, and J. Gallagher, from the Thorndon Estate office, Ingatestone ; Mr. E. J. Fooks, solicitor to Lord Peter ; Mr. Philip Witham, solicitor to Lady Petre ; and Mr. W. Walker, steward. There were also present a large number of the tenants of the estate, besides cottagers and workpeople. , Telegrams and letters regretting inability to be present at the funeral were received froth his Grace the Duke of Norfolk, K.G., the Earl of Denbigh, Lord Clifford, Lord Herries, Mr. Edward Petre, the Hon. Mrs. Charles Petre, the Hon. Albert Petre, and the Rev. H. D. Heatley, rector of Ingrave. In accordance with that old Catholic custom at funerals of members of the family, 72 loaves of bread and 72 shillings were afterwards distributed to poor widows of the neighbourhood. We are indebted for much of our report to the columns of The Essex Herald..

The above text was found on p.27, 11th January 1896 in “The Tablet: The International Catholic News Weekly.” Reproduced with kind permission of the Publisher. The Tablet can be found at http://www.thetablet.co.uk .

Sandars- Molyneux-Seel 1937

November 16, 2016 WillLeave a comment

Mr. George Edward Sandars, M.B.E. whose marriage to Miss Vera Margaret Molyneux-Seel took place on September 8th at St. Peter’s, Ludlow, is the eldest son of the Rev. George Russell Sandars, Rector of Davenham and Honorary Canon of Chester, and so is a third cousin both of Mr. J. W. E. G. Sandars, of Gate Burton Hall, whose wife is a daughter of Lady Winefride Elwes, and of Mrs. H. A. Burke whose marriage to Mr. Patrick H. A. Burke, Grenadier Guards, took place a couple of months ago. Mr. Sandars, who was at New College shortly after the War, is in the Sudan Political Service and received the M.B.E. in 1933.

The Sandars family was originally seated at Charlwood in Surrey, where the church contains several of their monuments, and the present line descends from an uncle of the famous Dr. Nicholas Sander, or Saunders, the Catholic controversialist and historian, who, on the defection of Queen Elizabeth, resigned his preferments, “ob fidem conservandam,” and went to Rome where he was ordained by Thomas Goldwell, Bishop of St. Asaph, the last survivor of the ancient hierarchy. Dr. Sander has been described as “the most noted defender of the Roman Catholic cause in his time,” and his manuscript treatise on the Holy Eucharist so impressed the Prince-Bishop of Ermland that he took him as one of his theologians to the Council of Trent. He afterwards settled in Louvain, where he became Regius Professor of theology and plunged into controversy including “a Confutation of such false Doctrine as M. Jewel hath uttered,” and about the same time he received a commission to publish in England the papal sentence that under no circumstance could attendance at the Anglican service be tolerated. About twelve years later, in 1579, he went to Ireland as Nuncio, when he showed extraordinary activity in the Earl of Desmond ‘s insurrection, a risk of his life which the leading English exiles, who knew his worth, grievously deplored. Their fears were justified, for after about eighteen months he died, probably of want and cold.

Dr. Sander was the author of the first great history of the English Reformation, a work which was vigorously attacked but which later research has largely justified. An instance of this is’ his account of the matrimonial troubles of John Ponet, Bishop of Winchester, wherein the error of his critics was confirmed on the publication in 1847 of the Diary of Henry Machyn in which there appears the entry : “The xxvij day of July (1551) was the nuw bisshope of W . . . was devorsyd from the bucher (butcher’s) wyff with shame enog (h).” Bishop Ponet, incidentally, appears to have had interesting ideas on the royal supremacy, for he seems to have been responsible, at any rate in part, for the theory “that to give license to sin was sin ; nevertheless, they thought the king might suffer or wink at it for a time”—” it ” being the question of the Princess Mary attending Mass.

Miss Vera Margaret Molyneux-Seel is a daughter of Major Edward Honore Molyneux-Seel, D.S.O.’ the second son of the late Edmund Richard Thomas Molyneux-Seel of Huyton Hey, a Chamberlain to Pope Pius IX, who married a daughter of the Duque de Losada y Lousada. Through his mother, Agnes, daughter of Sir Richard Bedingfeld, fifth Baronet, of Oxburgh, Mr. E. R. T. Molyneux-Seel was descended from three of the beatified English Martyrs, BB. Margaret of Salisbury and Philip and William Howard. His father, Thomas Molyneux-Seel, J.P. & D.L., of Huyton Hey, who built the church of St. Agnes at Huyton, took the name and arms of Molyneux-Seel in 1815, on inheriting the estates of his maternal ancestors. The Huyton property had been inherited by a younger branch of Molyneux of Sefton from the Harringtons, an ancient Catholic family descended from a brother of the Sir William Harrington who fought at Agincourt, and these predecessors are also commemorated in the names of Major Molyneux-Seel’s brother, the late Edmund Harrington Molyneux-Seel of Huyton, the father of Mrs. Carr-Saunders, and of his uncle, Henry Harrington Molyneux-Seel, Richmond Herald, who died in 1882.

The letters P. & 0. must be familiar to many who cannot give off-hand the full name of the great Company which they represent, and the name Brodie Willcox, which has once more come to the fore owing to the celebration of the P. & 0. centenary, probably means little except to Catholics and to those interested in the history of that famous shipping company. To Catholics, certainly, the name has an interest beyond its connection with shipping, for Brodie McGhie Willcox, M.P., was the maternal grandfather of that great Catholic of the last generation, Brodie Manuel de Zulueta y Willcox, third Conde de Torre Diaz. The Conde de Torre Diaz— the title dates from 1846, when it was granted to his grandfather by Isabella II of Spain—was a ” gentilhombre de Camera” to the King of Spain and held the Grand Crosses of Isabel la Catolica and San Gregorio, and in England, where he was also closely associated with the business interests of his family, he was Chairman of the Catholic Seamen’s Home and Institute, the forerunner of the present Chaplaincy to the Port of London, and Vice-President of the Superior Council of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul.

The third Conde de Torre Diaz ‘s father, whom he succeeded in 1882, was Chamberlain to the King of Spain and a member of the Spanish Senate until the Revolution of 1868, and two of his nephews have suffered similarly from a later revolution, for Don Pedro de Zulueta was an attaché at the Spanish Embassy in London until the proclamation of the Republic caused him to resign, and the Marques de Merry del Val, the eldest son of his sister Josephine, was Spanish Ambassador in London from 1913 until the Revolution.

Page 26, 18th September 1937

Sir Joshua Walmsley 1794–1871

November 7, 2016 WillLeave a comment

After the death of his father, Hugh Walmsley, wrote a rather hagiographic biography of Sir

Joshua Walmsley which was published in 1879. [The Life of Sir Joshua Walmsley, by his Son Hugh Mulleneux Walmsley. Chapman and Hall, 193, Piccadilly 1879]. It’s a surprisingly good read, large sections of it are from Sir Josh’s notes and diaries, and it’s certainly massively better than at least one of Uncle Hugh’s other books “The Ruined Cities of Zululand”. I will be posting extracts in a series called the “Life of Sir Josh”

Joshua Walmsley (1794–1871) was an English businessman and Liberal Party politician.The son of John Walmsley, an architect, builder and marble mason, he was born in Liverpool on 29 September 1794, and educated at Knowsley, Lancashire, and Eden Hall, Westmorland. After his father’s death in 1807, he became a teacher, and book-keeper at Eden Hall school; and following an argument in Westmorland he returned to Liverpool in 1811, and started teaching at Mr. Knowles’s school. He apprenticed himself to a corn merchant in 1814, and at the end of his apprenticeship went into the grain business himself.

He was an early advocate of the repeal of the duty on corn, and worked with Richard Cobden, John Bright, and others in the Anti-Corn Law League. In 1826 he took the presidency of the Liverpool Mechanics’ Institution. At about the same time Josh got to know George Stephenson, in whose railway schemes he was interested, and with whom he joined in purchasing the Snibstone estate, near Ashby-de-la-Zouch, where rich seams of coal were found. Along with Stephenson, he was amongst others one of the founding directors of the Clay Cross Company in 1837. He was elected a member of the Liverpool city council in 1835, and worked to improve the police, sanitation and education of the city. He was appointed Mayor in November 1838, and knighted on the occasion of Queen Victoria’s marriage.

He, and Lord Palmerston, unsuccessfully contested Liverpool standing as Liberals in June 1841. He retired to Ranton Abbey, Staffordshire, in 1843, and at the general election of 1847 was elected M.P. for Leicester, but was unseated on petition. He started the National Reform Association about this time, and was its president and chief organiser for many years. In 1849 he was returned as M.P. for Bolton in Lancashire, but in 1852 exchanged that seat for Leicester, where his efforts on behalf of the framework knitters made him popular with the workers but not their employers. He lost his seat in 1857, largely due to organised opposition from the employers, and he practically retired from public life, although he retained the presidency of the National Sunday League from 1856 to 1869.

In 1861, Sir Joshua and Adeline, whose occupation was given as “Lady” were living in some style at Wolverton Park, outside Kingsclere in Hampshire with their youngest son James, and his sisters Emily, and Adah. The whole household comprised of the family, plus Maria Butts (60) who was the cook, three housemaids, one of whom was thirty five, the other two were twenty-four. There were also three male servants, and what was so surprising is how young they were. Richard Pratt, the butler was only twenty-four, there was a sixteen year-old house boy, and Charlie Jacob, the groom was twenty.

He died on 17 November 1871 at Hume Towers, his house at Bournemouth, leaving issue, of whom H. M. Walmsley wrote The Life of Sir Joshua Walmsley (London 1879). He was interred at All Saints Church, Edge Hill, Liverpool. His wife, whom he married in 1815, née Adeline Mulleneux, survived him by two years.

From Wikipedia

The eldest daughter Elizabeth (b 1817) married Charles Binns (b 1815), a member of a prominent Quaker family, in 1839. Charles was the son of Jonathan Binns, a Liverpool-born land agent and surveyor living in Lancaster. Charles became manager of a coal and iron mine in Clay Cross, Derbyshire, which had been established by George Stephenson (and of which Sir Joshua Walmsley was a director), producing coal for transportation by his own railway. Elizabeth had four children (all girls) but then seems to have died in the early 1850s. Charles died in 1887. Emily Rachel Binns, Elizabeth and Charles’s youngest daughter married Samuel Rickman, and is the mother of Reginald Binns Rickman. Emily Rickman and Adah Russell are first cousins.

Little is known about Sir Joshua’s eldest son Joshua (1819-1872). He joined the Army and attained the rank of captain. He lived in southern Africa for many years and served as a border agent in Natal on the Zulu frontier. His account of his travels formed the basis of a book (novel) by his younger brother Hugh Mulleneux, The Ruined Cities of Zulu Land. He was buried at St Mary’s, Edge Hill in Liverpool on 14th December 1872, having died at “Chantilly, Zulu Frontier, in South Africa” on 20th April the same year.

The next son Hugh Mulleneux ( 1822-1882) also had an exotic career. He too joined the Army, including time with the 25^th Bengal Native Infantry, and then volunteered to join the Bashi Bazouks, an unsavoury formation of irregulars in the service of the Ottoman Empire. In due course he rose to the Ottoman rank of colonel. On his eventual return to England in about the mid 1850s he penned a succession of volumes, including several describing his own extensive travels on military service, a biography of his late father and also some adventure novels. He married Angelina Skey (b 1826) in 1870 and took up residence near his father in Hampshire.He was buried at St Mary’s, Edge Hill in Liverpool on 12th December 1882

James Mulleneux (b 1826), by contrast, became a civil engineer. In the 1850s he was lodging and working in Derbyshire. His Egstow address suggests he was involved with coal mining. He died on December 6th,1867 aged 41 and was buried on December 12th with his sisters at St Mary’s, Edge Hill. He died in Torquay. James was unmarried, and his addresses for probate were given as 101 Westbourne Terrace, and also Wolverton Park, Hampshire, both his father’s houses, and “latterly of Torquay, Devon”. Probate was granted to his father’s executors because Sir Josh was the “Universal Legatee”. It wasn’t granted until 1874, about three years after Sir J’s death in 1871. James left £2,000.

Emily (b 1830) became the second wife of William Ballantyne Hodgson (b 1815), a noted teacher, newspaper proprietor and academic. Hodgson was employed at the new Mechanics’ Institution (later Liverpool Institute) when Sir Joshua was mayor (and Emily but a child) and went on to become its Principal. He married Emily in 1863 and they mostly lived in London till Hodgson was appointed the first Professor of Political Economy in Edinburgh University in 1871. After he died in 1880, Emily stayed on in Edinburgh with their two children (one son and one daughter).

The youngest daughter Adah (b 1839) married a Welsh banker, William Williams, in 1866. They went to live in Merionethshire and had at least two daughters. Adah possibly died as early as 1876. Their daughter Adah Adeline Walmsley Williams (1867–1959) married Charles Russell in 1889

information from http://www.researchers.plus.com

Mary I.E.Fetherstonhaugh/Blood (nee O’Bryen)1867-1947- another orphan

November 1, 2016 WillLeave a comment

Mary Isabel O’Bryen is another splendid character. Pauline Roche was a definite ace, Mary Isabel, her first cousin is another. Not only is she another orphan, but very entertainingly her great, great aunt was Mrs Jordan, the mistress of William IV.

Mary Isabel Emily O’Bryen was born in 1867, probably in February, in Gibraltar, and died in 1947, in the Hall, West Farleigh, Kent leaving £15,769. Her executors were Henry Pollock (her son-in-law) and her step-son, Horace Blood. The Hall was her daughter Mary Corinne O’Bryen Margetts’ [nee Fetherstonhaugh] house.

Mary Isabel is Stephen Hewitt O’Bryen’s daughter, and was orphaned in 1872, at the age of five. She is a first cousin to Pauline Roche, Mgr HH O’B, Ernest O’Bryen, et al. She seems to be about seven months older than Rex O’Bryen, who was the youngest of the sixteen children of John Roche O’Bryen. She was also thirty years younger than her eldest cousins, Pauline Roche and Mgr Henry O’Bryen

Stephen Hewitt O’Bryen, (about 1816 -1872) is one of the seven children of Henry Hewitt O’Bryen Senior, and Mary Roche. He was the collector of revenue at Gibraltar. He had married Mary Hewson (1841- died before 1872) in Dublin in 1866. She would have been about 25, and he was about 50, and Mary Isabel seems to be their only child. It is unclear whether Stephen and Mary died at the same time, but on Stephen’s death on 26th April 1872 in Gibraltar, Mary Isabel’s aunt Fanny became her guardian.

rock_of_gibraltar_1810 — Rock of Gibraltar c.1810

“18 July 1874. Administration of the effects of Stephen Hewitt O’Bryen late of Gibraltar in Spain late Collector of Her Majesty’s Revenue there who died on or about 26 April 1872 at same place granted 6 July 1874 at Dublin under the usual Limitations to Fanny Augusta Fetherstonhaugh [wife of Capt Henry Fetherstonhaugh] of Tullamore Kings County the guardian of Mary Isabella Emily O’Bryen a Minor the Daughter and only Next of Kin. Effects in England under £ 3000.”

Fanny is probably the most obvious, and logical choice as a guardian. She is twenty-three years old when Stephen dies, and Mary Isabel is orphaned, and has been married for just over three years. She has had two daughters, although Mildred died aged eight months in 1871. By 1875, Fanny and Henry have four children, two boys, and two girls.

Emily Cecilia Fetherstonhaugh 18 Jan 1870 – died 30 Jul 1938 in Belfast
Mildred Elizabeth Fetherstonhaugh 13 Apr 1871- died 5 Dec 1871 aged eight months
Laura Hardy Fetherstonhaugh 11 Sept 1872 – died 15 Jan 1938 Belfast
Henry Hewson Fetherstonhaugh 10 Jan 1874 – died 1939 London
Rupert John Fetherstonhaugh 9 July 1875 – died 20 July 1954 Ireland
and Mary Isabel O’Bryen became part of the household.

There was no obvious candidate to be a guardian amongst her O’Bryen uncles and aunts. Indeed, all but two of the seven were dead; Henry Hewitt O’Bryen Junior died eleven months after his brother Stephen in February 1873, leaving only Robert O’Bryen who was fifty eight.

The Hewsons were similarly complicated, there were four sons and five daughters. By 1873, Laura, Robert, and Mary herself were dead, John and Conrad were unmarried. Of the remainder, Dora was married to Richard O’Connor who was serving as the Chief Magistrate in Singapore, so not really a candidate. Cecilia was married to the splendidly named Xaverius Blake Butler; she was, apparently, a secret drinker, and he had also taken to drink following the death of their three year old son in 1873, so that probably ruled them out. That left only two remaining Hewson uncles and aunts, Francis was recently married, and his wife Jane was expecting their first, and only, child, and then there was Fanny, the logical choice, as the only suitable one of Mary’s sisters, the unfortunate choice, in as far as, she died on the 5th November 1875.

Henry Fetherstonhaugh (1826-1898) seems to have died in the summer of 1898 aged 72 in Tullamore, co.Offally. He and Fanny Hewson had married on the 19th January 1869, in Tullamore, when he was forty-three, and she was twenty. He had been a Captain in the Westmeath Rifles, and then served as the governor of Tullamore gaol, co.Offally, it appears right up to his death.

He and Fanny had four children who lived to adulthood, Emily, Laura, Henry Hewson, and Rupert. Mary Isabel Emily O’Bryen seems to have been part of Henry Fetherstonhaugh’s family, and household until she married Alfred Joseph Fetherstonhaugh, who is a cousin on her mother’s side, in 1888. It was a relatively short-lived marriage, and Alf died on the 12th February 1894 in Biarritz, aged thirty-one. They had a daughter Mary Corinne O’Bryen Fetherstonhaugh (1890-1973).who was born on the 21st Dec 1890 in Dublin, and died on the 29th November 1973 at Malling Place, West Malling, Kent. She married Arthur Pearson Margetts in the summer of 1916 in Dublin.

Mary’s husband Alf is her uncle (and presumed guardian) Henry Fetherstonhaugh (1826-1898)’s first cousin once removed. Or to put it another way, Henry’s great grandfather,William Fetherstonhaugh (????-1770) is Alf’s great, great, grandfather. And to make things even more complicated, Henry’s elder sister Jane is Alf’s aunt, having married his father’s eldest brother, another William Fetherstonhaugh (1828-1914) . So her uncle’s sister is her husband’s aunt.

Alfred Joseph Fetherstonhaugh was the son of Stephen Radcliffe Fetherstonhaugh (1830 – 1895) and Jane Boyce who had eleven children. Jane was the daughter of Joseph Boyce who was a Lord Mayor of Dublin in 1855, and a ship owner

Mary Isabel’s maternal grandfather Frank Hewson was the nephew of Dorothy Bland, (1761-1816). known as the actress Mrs Jordan. She was the mistress of William, Duke of Clarence (later William IV), who she had five sons and five daughters with; she had previously had a daughter by Richard Daly (1758-1813), an Irish actor and theatrical manager. She was then the mistress of Sir Richard Ford (c.1759-1806), having three more children, two daughters and a son (who died at birth). She died unmarried at 1 Rue d’Angouleme, Saint-Cloud, Paris, 5 July 1816.

Mary Isabel’s second husband was Alexander Findlater Blood, who she married in 1897. They both had children from a previous marriage, he had three, she had one and they then had a daughter, Millicent Alix Blood, born 1898. She married Lt.-Col. Jack Gronow Davis in 1932, and they had three sons. He served in the Indian Army, and retired to Sussex. Both died in Kensington in the mid 1980’s

Alexander Findlater Blood was born in Dublin, on 25 July 1853, the son of John Lloyd Blood and Margaret Findlater. He was a barrister in Dublin, and came from a Dublin brewing family. The Bloods were distantly related to Colonel Thomas Blood (1618 –1680) best known for his attempt to steal the Crown Jewels from the Tower of London in 1671.

Alexander’s first wife was Rachel Anne Park, the daughter of Lt.-Col. Archibald Park, who he married on 28 September 1880; and the granddaughter of Mungo Park (1771 – 1806) who was a Scottish explorer of West Africa. He was the first Westerner known to have travelled to the central portion of the Niger River. His second wife was Mary Isabel O’Bryen, who he married on 23 April 1897, in Dublin. He died in Dublin, on 13 June 1933 aged 79.

Alexander Blood went to Trinity College, Dublin, and was admitted to the Irish Bar in 1877. He then practised as a barrister, and solicitor in New Zealand between 1878 and 1883. On his return to Ireland he was admitted to the Inner Bar in 1899. He was a member of the Senate of Dublin University, a practising Bencher of King’s Inns, Dublin and eventually a King’s Counsel (K.C.)

The Bloods lived in some style in Dublin in the early 1900’s. In 1901, they were at 7 Gardiners Row, in a thirteen room house, with a governess, nurse, cook parlourmaid, and a housemaid. 13 rooms. By 1911, they were in a larger house at 43 Fitzwilliam Place, Dublin; this time with nineteen rooms, and a stable at the back. There were fewer staff, only a cook parlourmaid, and a housemaid, but the children were older so there was no longer a need for the governess, and nurse.

Alex had three children from his first marriage to Rachel Anne Park. Her father served in the 24th Bengal Native Infantry, and 29th Bengal Native Infantry, and his father was Mungo Park (1771 – 1806) the African explorer. Alex and Rachel’s children were

Dorothy Margaret Blood (1882-1973). She was born in New Zealand, married Henry Brodhurst Pollock (1883-1952) They both lived at Castleknock Lodge, Castleknock, County Dublin; and are buried in St Brigid’s Church of Ireland churchyard in Castleknock.
Horace Fitzgerald Blood (1885- unk). He was a doctor, and served as a Captain in the Royal Army Medical Corps in the First War. he seems to have lived in co. Wicklow, having had two sons in 1915, and 1917.
Brigadier Jeffrey Armstrong Blood (1893-1966) . he served in the Indian Army, and seems to have settled in London on his retirement. He married Mildred Mary O’Connor, in London, on the 12th June 1926. Charles O’Connor was the last Master of the Rolls in Ireland, and one of the first judges of the Supreme Court of Ireland.

In another of those curious twists about quite how close families were inter-linked, Jeffrey Blood’s sister-in-law Evleen O’Connor, married Percy John Vincent MacDermot (1875- 1955) the son of Rt. Hon. Hugh Hyacinth O’Rorke MacDermot. Hugh MacDermot was a J.P. , and Deputy Lieutenant (D.L.) in co. Sligo, and was Solicitor-General [Ireland] in 1886, and then Attorney-General [Ireland] in 1892. He also became a Privy Counsellor (P.C.) that year.

Percy MacDermot, was a Captain in the West Indian Regiment. He lived and died at Drumdoe, co. Roscommon. Percy married twice, they married in 1927, and his second wife was Amy Mary French. She was the daughter of Charles French and Constance Ellinor Chichester. Constance Ellinor Chichester, was Mary Esther Grehan (nee Chichester)’s sister. She is married to Stephen Grehan Junior, who is Ernest O’Bryen’s third cousin.

So Mary Isabel O’Bryen’s step-son’s second wife is the niece of her first cousin’s third cousin by marriage. Do keep up……God, these people make my head hurt at times.

Charles French, Amy’s father was the M.P for co. Roscommon between 1873 and 1880, and in a curious case of inheritance was passed over from inheriting his father’s title. Charles French,(1790-1868) was the 3rd Baron De Freyne, . His [Catholic] marriage to “Catherine Maree, a peasant girl (b. c. 1827; d. 13 Oct 1900)” in 1851 was held to be invalid under the laws of Ireland at the time – as a consequence his eldest son, Charles and his two immediately younger brothers were held to be illegitimate hence incapable of inheriting the title, which accordingly passed on their father’s death to the fourth son.” [ all from cracroftspeerage.co.uk]. Charles and Catherine had a second [Church of Ireland] marriage in 1854, and the fourth son Arthur (1855-1913) inherited the title.

The Pauline Roche case – JR’s reply

November 1, 2016September 24, 2021 WillLeave a comment

The Pauline Roche story seems to have been very popular. This is a transcript of the very lengthy letter that John Roche O’Bryen wrote to his local paper “The Bristol Mercury and Western Counties Advertiser” on the 29th December 1855, giving his side of the story.

It is quite clearly carefully planned, and done with the support of the editor of the Bristol Mercury. The italics for inference are printed in the paper, so it is definitely planned with some care, and not just a letter to the editor.

It’s also a classic example of bad PR probably making things worse. In a taster of things to come, JROB starts his letter with the Latin tag “Audi alterum partem” best translated as “let the other side be heard as well”, and finishes with “Fiat Justitia, ruat caelum” – “Let justice be done though the heavens fall”. This was most famously used by Lord Mansfield in 1772 in the first major English case on the legality of slavery. He was against.

So pompous, self-serving, and an astonishing attack in print on a teenager from a forty five year old doctor. Quite why he chose to go public when he did is not entirely clear, but it seems to be provoked by a decision by “the Court of the Corporation of the Poor” [they ran the Bristol workhouse]. I assume they had made the decision to remove JR as one of the guardians, but as yet I have no evidence to support that.

To be fair to JR, the Master of the Rolls who heard the case was Sir Thomas Berry Cusack-Smith (1795–1866), who does appear to be faintly bonkers. He was the Attorney-General who prosecuted Daniel O’Connell in 1844 on charges of conspiracy, sedition, and unlawful assembly. During the course of that trial he challenged one of the opposing counsel, Gerald Fitzgibbon, to a duel.

This is JR’s letter in full:

THE BRISTOL MERCURY, AND WESTERN COUNTIES ADVERTISER, SATURDAY DECEMBER 29 1855

DR. O’BRYEN AND THE CORPORATION OF THE POOR

Audi alterum partem,

To the Editor of The Bristol Mercury

SIR – I need make no apology for asking your indulgence to enable me to defend myself by bringing before the public such explanation as I can offer of certain expressions that fell from the Irish Master of the Rolls when called on to settle a mere matter of costs. What purported to be his language appeared in your paper of the 22^nd of June last. The course the Court of the Corporation of the Poor have thought proper to adopt, at their meeting of the 11^th instant, obliges me, most reluctantly, to re-open a matter I had rather forgotten, not that I feel at all conscious of having done wrong, for, were it so, I would not now ask a hearing. The manifestly partial and one-sided import of the words used by the Master of the Rolls, it was considered, would be their own antidote, for all who knew me in private life were aware how unfounded such “surmises” and “inferences” as he thought it not beneath him to indulge in, were in fact. For this, amongst several other valid reasons, not adverse to myself, which I cannot publish, my friends advised me to let the matter rest, and I now regret that I permitted myself to be prevailed on to leave the matter to public opinion, which, it was alleged, would not fail to discern the ex parte nature of his language, and judge accordingly, instead of at once showing (at all risks) how entirely at variance it was with the judgement of the Master in Chancery, to which no exceptions were taken.

Before entering into the merits of this case, or making any justifications of my conduct, three points of special difficulty must be borne in mind: –

1^st – By the manner of proceeding in the court of Chancery, charges to any amount, in number and gravity, may be made at pleasure, without regard to their truth or application, and I was called on to prove a negative, and that extending over a period of 18 years, not even illustrated by dates, to a long list of charges so got up.

2^nd – I laboured under the great and irremediable disadvantage of the absence of the most important, I might almost say the only, witness capable of directly answering who had lived with me for eight years: she had left and gone on the Continent, to a situation, some time previously. The rules of the Court require all testimony to be sworn before a Master Extraordinary of that Court. None such being on the Continent, I was deprived of her evidence; my children at home were very young, the others were on the Continent at school, under age, and therefore inadmissible. Hence, to prove the negative, I was compelled to rely on my own and my wife’s evidence, that of any servant I could find who had lived with us during that period, and the very few visitors and friends who knew our private household life sufficiently well (and all know how few such can exist) to be able to speak to the untruth of one or more of these charges.

3^rd – I have now, in addition, to contend with the “surmises” and “inferences” which the Irish Master of the Rolls thought proper to indulge in when called on to settle a mere matter of costs.

The Minor, Miss Roche, made certain complaints to the Lord Chancellor Brady, who directed that the Master in Chancery, J.J.Murphy, esq., should proceed to examine into and report upon them to him, which was done, and the report presented to his Lordship, when he directed the Master of the Rolls to settle the costs.

Every impartial reader of the reported language of the Master of the Rolls must be struck with one fact, that, to use a mild expression, he allowed the gravity of the judge to disappear in the one-sided earnestness of the advocate. It is manifest his language did not meet the justice of the case, and for this view I rely on the finding and judgement of the Master in Chancery, the officer to whom the complaints were referred, and before whom all the witnesses were brought, and the evidence was investigated, and within whose province it came to decide on the validity and effect of the allegations against me; and notwithstanding all the difficulties I had to encounter in rebutting these charges, and the almost impossibility of finding evidence, yet I refer the reader with confidence to his verdict.

“In the matter of J.P.Roche, a Minor, – Hy. Thos Keane, plaintiff, Hugh Roche and others, defendants; Hy. Thos Keane, plaintiff, Elizabeth Roche defendant; Hy. Thos Keane, plaintiff, Peter Cook and others, defendants.”

“ To the Right Honourable Maziere Brady, Lord High Chancellor of Ireland. May it please your Lordship, pursuant to your Lordship’s order made into this matter, and in these tatises bearing date 2^nd day of November 1854, whereby it was referred to me to inquire and report whether the treatment of the said Minor had been proper and according to the direction of this court; and for the purpose of ascertaining and determining upon the guardian’s treatment of the said Minor, I directed that a specification should be prepared, setting forth in writing the charges or causes of complaint alleged by her, or on her behalf, against the said John Roche O’Bryen: the same were accordingly specified and marked with my initials.”

The charges laid before the Master in Chancery for investigation, were as follows:-

FIRST GENERAL CHARGE

“ That said john Roche O’Bryen treated said Minor in a harsh and cruel manner, unsuited to her age and constitutional delicacy.” Viz:-

“By striking her with a riding whip, and on other occasions making use of personal violence to her, and generally treating her with cruelty and harshness.”
“ In having compelled her, or induced her by false statements as to her position in his family, to undertake and perform menial services, such as washing and dressing the younger children of said J.R.O’Bryen, acting as nursery governess, sweeping rooms, and like offices.”
“In having compelled, or induced said Minor to dine in the kitchen or servants hall, in company with the female servants and younger children of said J.R.O’Bryen.

SECOND GENERAL CHARGE

“That said John Roche O’Bryen treated said Minor in a manner unsuited to her age and constitutional delicacy, and prospects in life, and not in accordance with the allowance made for her maintenance in that behalf by the reports on orders in said matter, viz:-“

“In supplying her with clothes unsuited to her age and prospects in life.”
“In supplying her with food unsuited to her station in life and natural delicacy of constitution.”
“In not allowing said Minor pocket money suited in its amount to her age and prospects in life.”
“In not providing said Minor with horse exercise, in accordance with the report bearing date 28^th May, 1850.”
“In having caused the acquaintances and teachers to believe that said Minor was a dependant on the charity of said John R. O’Bryen, and to act towards her accordingly.”
“That said John Roche O’Bryen concealed from Minor her true position in his family, and made false statements to her respecting her prospects and the true position of her affairs.”

J.J.M.

The evidence on both sides having been entered into in respect to these charges, Master Murphy gave the following judgement to which no exceptions having been taken, it was formally embodied in his report to the Lord Chancellor, and to this I now refer, as my reply to the following charges.

“The 1^st is sustained so far as to striking her with a riding-whip, and on another occasion (see evidence) striking her with his hand – no other proof of actual violence. It further appears the Minor at an earlier period (see evidence) felt such apprehension that she left her guardian’s house. &c. The striking I consider wholly unjustifiable, and I have no further evidence of cruelty. As to harshness, I think Dr O’Bryen’s manner may have laid a foundation to that charge. He appears to me to entertain very high notions of the prerogatives of a guardian as well as a parent, but I have no sufficient or satisfactory evidence of any general or deliberate harsh treatment on his part.”

“I have not evidence that satisfies me that Dr O’Bryen made use of false statements as to the Minor’s position in his family. The Minor may have undertaken and performed what are termed menial offices, which she now complains of, but in my opinion she never was induced or compelled to do so by Dr O’Bryen. I think she was, to an advanced period of her life, left too much in communication with servants, governesses, and younger children having regard to her prospects in life and her constitutional and moral tendencies and her due self-respect. This coarse, I think, latterly made her reckless and indifferent, and indisposed to avail herself of the opportunities which may then have been afforded her of associating with Dr and Mrs O’Bryen.”

“Upon the evidence before me I consider this a misrepresentation. I do not see any reason to believe that she ever dined in the kitchen – servants’ hall there was not in the house. If she ever dined in the kitchen, or in company with the servants, she did so, in my judgement, without any inducement or compulsion on the part of Dr O’Bryen.”

“The second I have already partially answered (see above).”

“I consider it due to Dr O’Bryen to state that whatever fault of judgement or manner he may be chargeable with in the moral treatment of the minor, he appears to have had her well educated according to her position and capacity, and to have bestowed on her medical treatment very commendable attention and skill, and that he also gave her full opportunities of taking horse exercise if she pleased; also latterly, opportunities, so far as she appears to have desired, of associating with his respectable acquaintances; and, with the exception of the article of clothing (about which I doubt), and the defects of moral treatment above referred to, I can discover no well-founded reason to complain of his conduct as a guardian.”

“The specific complaints under this band are:-

“In the article of clothes, but for the evidence of Mr Stephen O’Bryen, having made a complaint to Mr Sweeny on this (unclear) as appears in the evidence of the latter, I should have found against the charge; after that evidence I am inclined to think there was some ground for the Minor’s complaint on this bead.”
“As to the supply of food, it was not exactly what I could have wished in some respects; but it was always the same as that given to Dr O’Bryen’s own children; and it further appears that the Minor was allowed to keep the keys, and could have taken what she wished. I consider the cause of this complaint was much exaggerated.”
“It does not appear that Minor ever asked or expressed a wish to get pocket-money. It also appears that she had actually given some money to Dr O’Bryen to keep for her.”
“As to not providing Minor with horse exercise, I consider this charge colourable, and without any real foundation or just cause of complaint.”
“The evidence on this point is conflicting: there is a good deal of it on the part of the Minor, but the charge has not been established to my satisfaction.”
“This I have already answered as to the Minor’s position in his family. As to her prospects, and the true position of her affairs, Dr O’Bryen has himself stated that he did think it not prudent to disclose in this respect, with his reasons he may have withheld. I cannot satisfactorily arrive at the conclusion that he made any false statements in this regard. I must, however, state my belief that the minor was not, for a considerable time past by any means so ignorant of the state of her property and the condition of her affairs as has been represented on her part. And, upon the whole, I find that she has been maintained and educated in a manner which entitles him to be paid the allowance payable for said minor.”

J.J.MURPHY

The above official document fairly disposes, after a thorough investigation, of a long list of specified charges; but there remain a few new ones, brought forward for the first time by the master of the Rolls, and I will now proceed to deal with them.

It appears in evidence that the minor went daily to the house of a governess for a fixed time, and that this person thought proper, during this time to give her a few lessons on the harp, which she alleges she did without charge as she considered the Minor an orphan and dependant. This was done without the knowledge or consent of her guardian. The Master of the rolls found on this “an inference” and a grave charge. He says- “It appears to me that if she did receive a proper education, it was that of a poor relation, and my inference is, that the money was spent on the education of the cousins of Minor, and that the governess, from motives of benevolence, gave this young lady, whom she supposed a dependant, instructions with her pupils.” No charge of this nature was ever made by my opponents: but on the contrary, it was admitted that Minor had received as good an education as she was capable of; a view confirmed by the report of the Master as follows:- “ I deem it right to state, in justice to the said guardian, that he appears to me to have displayed very commendable attention and skill in the medical treatment of said Minor, and to have had her duly and properly educated, and upon the whole that she has been maintained and educated by him in a manner which entitles him to be paid the allowance payable for the said Minor.”

Again the Master of the Rolls indulges in inferences. He is represented to have said-“Now, if the Minor deserved punishment for a falsehood, what punishment would be sufficiently ample for the man who told his niece such a falsehood as that her father died in debt and left her nothing.” The facts of the case show the Master of the Rolls to have been ill-informed, and to have made a grave charge which he ought to have known was untrue in fact. The facts are these:- The father of Minor made his will in 1832 and died in 1835, when Minor was three months old. He left all his real and personal property to his brothers absolutely, save an annuity to his widow, and made no provision for any child or children. Master Goold’s report of 1836, when minor was made a ward, makes it appear that only £1374 remained in Irish funds out of £ 10,000 to which Minor was entitled under the will of her maternal great-grandfather, to whom her father was executor. Her father admits in his will that he drew and spent the money, and accordingly bills were filed against his brothers to recover deficiency. All the property was sold, and did not realise anything like the debt. Hence it was perfectly true to tell Minor that her father had left her nothing and died in debt.

That the letter of May 4^th,1854, written by Minor, was a part of a conspiracy, must appear to everyone, when I state that it was proved by several witnesses that the Minor knew she had property of her own, and was not dependant. Sympson, the man-servant who accompanied her when she rode out states in his evidence, “ Minor frequently told him when out riding with her, and he particularly recollects one occasion in the summer of 1851, and he heard her tell the other servants of the house the same thing, that she had property of her own, and that Dr O’Bryen was allowed for her maintenance, and also the keep of a pony for her use;” and the master has found, “I must, however, state my belief that the Minor was not, for a considerable time past, by any means so ignorant of the state of her property and the condition of her affairs as has been represented on her part.” So much for her alleged ignorance up to August 1855 which I am deeply grieved to say she has sworn to. In regard to the letter which this Minor has declared she wrote to Mr Orpen, at the dictation of Mrs O’Bryen, I will only say that Mrs O’Bryen has twice sworn that she only, as was her custom, connected the Minor’s ideas, and faithfully expressed her wishes at the same time without suggestion of her own, and I will add, we both now believe that she thus acted to deceive and put Mrs O’Bryen off her guard. The Minor took care to send to her solicitor the pencil sketch, which at least, demonstrates deep cunning. Again, this unfortunate child has sworn that on October 3^rd 1854, when Mr Orpen called to see her, she was engaged sweeping out the school-room, and doing other menial work, while two persons clearly prove on oath that she was dressing to go out to pay a visit and not engaged as stated by her, and one of these witnesses was the servant, who was actually at the moment employed in these duties, who swore, “ saith that Minor hath not been, and was not employed in sweeping out the school-room, or making up her own room at the time of said Mr Orpen’s visit; inasmuch as this deponent was in the act of making said minor’s bed, dusting her room &c.2 Whilst said Minor was dressing to go out, saith “that whilst in said house Minor never swept out school-room, never made up her own room, or did any other menial service.” After this, what reliance can be placed on this Minor’s statement?

I will say one word as to dress. This minor so wilfully neglectful of her dress and personal appearance, that for several months Mrs O’Bryen declined to speak to her on the subject for when she did so she received an insolent reply. Hence I was myself obliged, if in the house, to inspect her daily before she went out and when she came down in the morning, and it rarely happened that I had not to send her to her room to change or arrange her dress, brush her hair, and often even to wash her face and neck. For a reason then unknown and unsuspected by us, but which has since transpired (viz:- her intention to found a charge and give it the appearance of truth), she would persist in only wearing old and worn-out dresses that I had several times made her lay aside, and directed to be thrown into the old clothes bag. In fact I had to threaten to search her room and burn them before I could succeed. She put on one of the worst of them outside the day she left my house. I often met her in the street, and had to send her back to change her dress, &c., and notwithstanding all this trouble, my wishes were evaded or neglected the moment my back was turned. The amount of vexation and annoyance this child gave us by her habits and general conduct cannot easily be described. Not a single article of dress was bought for her after Mr Orpen’s visit, and yet an excellent wardrobe was found in her room the day she left. The list is too long to add.

There is only one point on which the Master finds against me, viz. striking: on this subject I am unwilling to give details. It is quite true that in a moment of hastiness on two occasions (in 18 years) caused by extremely bad general conduct on the part of Minor, remonstrance having failed, which at these times was brought to a point, and I did strike her once each time as she was leaving the room, and of this, which in reality is nothing, much has been made by those who wanted to make costs, certain to be paid by either party.

My counsel in Ireland recommended an appeal, but my law adviser in this country said “What are you to gain? All material charges have been disproved; the master’s report is in your favour; no costs have been thrown on you; the allowance has been paid; would it be worth your trouble to appeal only to get rid of the language used by the Master of the Rolls? For this is all you could expect, while the expense of an appeal would prove considerable, and the trouble not a little.”

I will only add, in conclusion, that I hold certain instructions in Minor’s handwriting that she received from a gipsy, proving on the face of it that she was employed to act on this child’s mind.

I now submit the case, which I have shadowed(?) out in this letter, not so much in the hope of appeasing the unthinking anger of incompetent and prejudiced persons, as in the certainty of finding justice at the hands of all those who may have taken a very natural and justifiable interest in the allegations made against me, and are yet open to conviction, and are willing to give its just weight to a true and honest statement of facts.

It is a most painful position to be placed in, after many years spent in gratuitous and honourable professional service, to be summoned before a tribunal which has no power to acquit or condemn, but can only cast a stigma. But no man of earnest(?) and conscious rectitude chooses to withhold a defence beyond a certain limit, however strong his private reasons may be for so doing. That limit has now been reached in the opinion of friends and in my own, and I take with the utmost confidence the on course which appears left open to me.

“Fiat Justitia, ruat caelum

Yours, &c, Mr Editor,

JOHN O’BRYEN, M.D.

Aghada Hall, co. Cork.

October 26, 2016 Will7 Comments

Aghada Hall was, apparently, a large Georgian house designed by the Cork architect Abraham Hargrave (1755-1808); though it seems to be “a comfortable gentleman’s residence rather than a vast mansion.” It was completed in 1808. John Roche was also responsible for the start of the Aghada National School in 1819.

It’s time to revise this post quite a lot, and I am extremely grateful for a Thackwell grandson for the photos of the house. For the purposes of clarity, I’m going to call it Aghada Hall. John Roche, (17??- 1829) who had it built referred to it as Aghada House, but it was later referred to as Aghada Hall. Tony Harpur, a local historian in Cork sent me the following:

“The first edition Ordnance Survey map names the house as Aghada House (c1840). The house was named in the Ordnance Survey map of the early 20th century as Aghada Hall and was noted as being ‘in ruins’ – this is probably some time in the early 1930s because although a major survey was carried out by the Ordnance Survey before 1914, additional information was added to the map from a survey of 1935-1938.”

In the 1911 Irish census, Aghada Hall was described as a first class house with 9 windows in the front, and 8 rooms occupied by the family, and 15 outbuildings. Edwin (or Edward – he used both) Penrose-Thackwell was also listed as the owner of a two room cottages, one three room, and one four room cottage, nearby.

The estate seems to be a substantial working farm. The main house had two stables, a coach house, harness room; three cow houses, a calf house, and a dairy. It also had a piggery, fowl house, boiling house, barn, shed, and a store.

Fifty-four year old Edwin was living in the main house with a substantial staff, Thomas and Lavinia Buckley, who were married, were the butler, and housemaid respectively. They also had fifty-five year old Mary Flynn, the cook, and a dairymaid, parlourmaid, and kitchenmaid, all in their twenties.

In addition, to the main house, James Scanlon the gardener (48) and his wife were in the two room cottage. Ernest Jones (32), and his wife Gertrude (30) and their eight year old son were in the four room cottage, along with Gertrude’s twenty-five year old sister. Ernest was the chauffeur, and Ernie and Gertie had been married 11 years. Finally, there were eight members of the Murphy family in the three room cottage. Edmond Murphy and his wife with three daughters, and three sons. All four men, Edmond (50), Denis (22), Edmond (16), and Patrick (15) are general labourers, presumably working on the estate.

The gardener and chauffeur’s houses, both had a shed and fowl house, and the Murphys had a piggery, and fowl house.

John Roche who built the house, “amassed great wealth during the French wars”, according to “Barrymore Records of the Barrys of County Cork” published in 1902. He was Ernest O’Bryen’s great grandfather, and made quite significant efforts to establish some sort of Roche dynasty to maintain the family name, and the house that he had built for himself.

There were three significant beneficiaries of John Roche’s will of 1826, with a later codicil. They were his nephews James Joseph Roche, and William Roche; they seem to be cousins rather than brothers. The third main beneficiary was John Roche’s eldest grandson, John Roche O’Bryen. The total estate amounted to about £ 30,000 when John Roche died in 1829, the modern day equivalent of £45,720,000.00.

The house and land was left to James, and his male heirs, first of all, and then William, who also inherited £ 10,000, “in case of his not coming into possession of the estate by the means before-mentioned, I leave him £6,000″ plus John’s grand-daughter, Jane O’Brien’s …… £4,000 £4 per cent. stock ;” . Jane O’Bryen, John Roche’s granddaughter was married to his nephew William Roche, and their daughter Pauline Roche inherited their share as a one year old orphan. The final third was John Roche O’Bryen’s £ 10,000, presumably in the expectation that a male Roche heir would inherit the house and land.

John Roche O’Bryen, and Jane O’Bryen were Catholic. All their five remaining younger siblings were Church of Ireland. JROB and Jane/William Roche are the only O’Bryen beneficiaries of John Roche’s estate. The O’Bryen siblings are John Roche’s only grandchildren.

John Roche also left a series of £ 100 legacies (present-day £ 150,000) to various sisters, and nephews and nieces, and “To the parish of Aghada, I leave the school-house, and £20 ( £ 30,000) a-year for its support, and also the chapel and priest’s house I leave to the parish rent-free for ever, as long as they shall be used for such qualified purposes ; the five slate houses I built in the village, I leave to five of the poorest families rent free ; to David Coughlan I leave the house he now lives in during his life ; to my servant, James Tracy I leave the house his wife now lives in; and to my wife’s servant, Mary Ahearne, otherwise Finne, her house rent-free during their lives ; and to each of those three, viz.,David Coughlan, James Tracy, and Mary Ahearne, otherwise Finne, I leave £10 (£15,000) a-year during their lives :”

Aghada is a small fishing town situated to the south-east of Cork city in County Cork, Ireland. Aghada parish consists of several small villages and townlands including Rostellan, Farsid, Upper Aghada, Lower Aghada, Whitegate, Guileen and Ballinrostig.

The estate, and the provisions of John Roche’s will were part of a court case, and appeal in 1848, and 1849. (Hillary Term 1848, Mary O’Brien v James Roche and William Roche…lands of Aghada [Mitchelstown Cork]… and Roche v. O’Brien —Feb. 1, 2. 1849) following the death of James Joseph Roche in 1847. William Roche had died in 1836, and James Joseph Roche, and his family were living there until James’s death in 1847. The house appeared to have briefly in the possession of Henry Hewitt O’Bryen Junior, one of the younger O’Bryen siblings in the early 1850’s.

The house and land were sold in July 1853 in the Encumbered Estates Court, as part of the estates of James Joseph Roche, and William Roche, with Mary (Maria Josepha) and Eleanor Roche listed as owners, and Pauline Roche as ex parte. [The Encumbered Estates’ Court was established to facilitate the sale of Irish estates whose owners were unable to meet their obligations. It was given authority to sell estates on application from either the owner or an encumbrancer (somebody who had a claim on it) and, after the sale, distribute the proceeds among the creditors, granting clear title to the new owners.] The house was bought by Major General Sir Joseph Lucas Thackwell in 1853, and remained in the Thackwell family until at least 1911. Henry Hewitt O’Bryen does still seem to be a significant landowner in the area, so may well have kept some of the land.

Most traces of Aghada Hall seem to have disappeared, apart from signs of a walled garden, half an entrance and a small gatehouse. The old sheds and stables have apparently been converted into houses.

Major General Sir Joseph Lucas Thackwell had married Maria Audriah Roche (from the Trabolgan branch of the Roche family) in 1825. She was the eldest daughter of Francis Roche of Rochemount, County Cork (an uncle of Edmond Roche, 1st Baron Fermoy). This, incidentally, made Maria Thackwell, a first cousin, five-times removed of Diana, Princess of Wales. They had four sons and three daughters. She should not to be confused with Maria Josepha Roche, who was James Joseph Roche’s daughter, and one of the parties to the 1848/9 court cases.

In a final twist, The Cork Examiner,reported on the 25th January 1860, having picked up the story from the Illustrated London News that:

“The will of the late celebrated General Sir Joseph Thackwell, G.C.B., has just been proved. By a codicil, dated the day before his death, he deprives his eldest son, Captain (Edward Joseph) Thackwell, the author of the “Second Sikh War, in 184-89,” [sic] and now a barrister at law, of all the property left him in a former will, including Aghada Hall, Cork, and Conneragh House, Waterford, and gives it to trustees in trust for his grandchildren, who must be educated in the tenets of the Protestant religion. Captain Thackwell had been received into the Roman Catholic Church only a short time previous to Sir Joseph’s decease.”

There seem to have been about nine grandchildren; all either the children of Edward Joseph Thackwell (1827, d. 1903), or his younger brother Major-General William de Wilton Roche Thackwell (1834–1910). Edward Joseph’s son, Lt.-Col. Joseph Edward Lucas Thackwell (1853-1886) had four sons, and one daughter, who seemed to be the major beneficiaries, or users of the Irish houses. His son Walter Joseph de Rupe Thackwell was described as “now of Aghada,” in Burke’s Landed Gentry in 1894, and a younger son Captain Edward Hillyar Roche Thackwell, was living at the house in Waterford in 1911.

However Major William de Wilton Roche Thackwell (1834-1910), and his wife Charlotte Tomkinson seem to have lived in Aghada Hall, at least some of the time until 1894. Their eldest daughter Katherine Harriet Thackwell (1866 – 1950) married Col. Edward (or Edwin) Rawdon Penrose in 1891, and they celebrated their wedding there. Katherine, and Edward added Thackwell to the family surname by 1911, most probably after the death of Katherine’s father in 1910, becoming Penrose-Thackwell from then on.

Kitty_Pope_Hennessy — Kitty Pope Hennessy

The only significant grandchild not to have a notable link to the house is William WR’s only son Edward Francis Thackwell (1868 -1935) but that was most probably because he had married Kitty Pope-Hennessy on Feb 3 1894 at Rostellan Castle in Cork. She was a forty-four year old widow, and he was twenty six. He was a year older than her eldest son who died young, and three, and seven, years older than his step-sons.

It was probably a Catholic wedding, thus excluding Edward from the provisions of his grandfather’s will, but the pain may have been slightly ameliorated by his wife’s thirty room castle, with the sixty one outbuildings, including seventeen stables, three coach houses, two harness rooms, and twenty cow houses. All of two and a half miles from Aghada Hall.

It is still not entirely clear when the house was demolished.

Sir Joseph Thackwell 1781- 1859

October 25, 2016April 26, 2020 WillLeave a comment

Sir Joseph Thackwell GCB KH (1 February 1781 – 9 April 1859) enters the story because he bought Aghada Hall in 1853, when it was sold following the death of James Joseph Roche, and the O’Brien v. Roche court cases in 1849.

Joseph Thackwell was born on 1 February 1781 at Rye Court, in Worcestershire. He was the fourth son of John Thackwell and Judith Duffy. The Thackwells had been landed gentry in Gloucestershire, and Worcestershire since at least the middle of the C17th. John Thackwell, JP, “of Rye Court,Moreton Court, and Birtsmorton Court in Worcestershire”, Joseph’s father died 1808. Nash, writing towards the end of the 18th century, remarked that ‘the Thackwells have now a good estate in this parish.’ The parish being Berrow in Worstershire.

The 15th Light Dragoons at the Battle of Sahagun 21 December 1808

He was commissioned as a Cornet in the Worcester Fencible Cavalry in 1798, was promoted to lieutenant in September 1799, and served in Ireland until the regiment was disbanded in 1800. He joined the 15th Light Dragoons, becoming a Captain in 1807. He served with the 15th Hussars in the Peninsular War at the Battle of Sahagún in 1808 and the Battle of Vitoria in 1813, and he lost his left arm at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815. He was promoted to a major at Waterloo, and made a brevet (honorary) lieutenant-colonel in 1817.

The 15th Hussars were at the Peterloo massacre in Manchester in 1817. So he may well have been at Peterloo. According to the Manchester Observer, “one officer of the 15th Hussars was heard trying to restrain the, by now out of control, Manchester and Salford Yeomanry, who were cutting at every one they could reach” calling out “For shame! For shame! Gentlemen: forbear, forbear! The people cannot get away!” It’s probably too much to hope he was the officer “trying to restrain the out of control Manchester and Salford Yeomanry”, but it is at least possible. He was almost as senior as Lieutenant Colonel Guy L’Estrange [the commanding officer on the day] , but, as a brevet (honorary) lieutenant-colonel, didn’t out-rank him on the 16th August.

The regiment had been split up in 1817, and occupied various country quarters until it was reformed in 1821. So he may not have been there, it is certainly not mentioned in “The Military Memoirs of Lieut-General Sir Joseph Thackwell” published in 1908, which has quite an extensive about riots in Nottingham in 1831, where the 15th Hussars were supporting the civil power.

He could have been at Peterloo, or perhaps not, either way, a year after the massacre, he was in command of the regiment for the following twelve years, up to 1832.

Joseph Thackwell was very much a career soldier, with brief pauses, he served almost fifty seven years in the Army. It’s quite a thought that almost forty years of that service was with only one arm. He was made Lieutenant-Colonel of the 15th Light Hussars on 15 June 1820, and commanded the regiment from 1820 to 1832. He then served in India, commanding the cavalry in the First Anglo-Afghan War of 1838–89, and at the Battle of Sobraon in the First Anglo-Sikh War of 1845–46, and at the Battle of Chillianwala and Battle of Gujrat in the Second Anglo-Sikh War of 1848-9. He also commanded the 3rd The King’s Own Dragoons, was colonel of the 16th Lancers, and was appointed Inspector-General of Cavalry, replacing HRH the Duke of Cambridge (1819-1904).

His final promotion was to Lieutenant General on 20th June 1854, aged 73, as part of the Inspector-General of Cavalry appointment, although he had been seeking a cavalry command in the Crimean War. The appointment lasted less than a year, and he was replaced as Inspector-General on the 1st February 1855 by Major-General Lord Cardigan, fresh from the Crimea, and the debacle of the Charge of the Light Brigade. Cardigan’s appointment was political, and a reward for what was initially regarded as heroic behaviour, and poor old Sir Joe was the rather un-thanked casualty of Cardigan’s reward.

royal-hospital-chelsea — Royal Hospital Chelsea

Sir Joe was offered the Lieutenant-Governorship of the Royal Hospital at Chelsea, but declined it, and finally retired to Aghada for the remaining three years of his life.

He had married Maria Audriah Roche, eldest daughter of Francis Roche of Rochemount, County Cork, who was a great uncle of Edmond Roche, 1st Baron Fermoy, on 29 July 1825. Joseph was forty-four years old, she was nineteen. Maria Thackwell was, therefore, a first cousin, five-times removed of Diana, Princess of Wales. Sir Joseph bought Cherrymount House, at Templemichael, co. Waterford, in 1852, and Aghada Hall in co. Cork, the following year 1853. He died in Ireland on the 9th April 1859, aged 77, probably at Aghada Hall, and was buried on 14 April 1859 at Corkbeg cemetery, co. Cork, and Maria, who survived him by fifteen years, was buried there in June 1874. She was 68.

Joe and Maria had four sons and three daughters.

Edward Joseph Thackwell b. 1827, d. 1903
Major-General William de Wilton Roche Thackwell (1834–1910)
Osbert Dabitôt Thackwell (1837–1858), unmarried aged twenty one.
Francis John Roche Thackwell, ( ????-1869) unmarried ?
Elizabeth Cranbourne Thackwell
Annie Esther Thackwell m. Rev T.P.Little vicar of The Edge, Gloucs. d.1902
Maria Roche Thackwell m. Lieut-Col James Bennett

He was invested as a Knight, Order of Hanover (K.H.) in 1834, well technically admitted to the Third Class of the Hanoverian Guelphic Order, on his retirement from the 15th Hussars. He was made a Companion of the Order of the Bath (C.B.) in July 1837, a month after Queen Victoria’s accession to the throne, as part of his promotion to a Major-General in India, and then finally, on his retirement, made a Knight Grand Cross of the Most Honourable Military Order of the Bath (G.C.B.) in 1849, on the recommendation of the Duke of Wellington. To quote from his memoirs.

‘On the 17th May the Duke of Wellington wrote to Sir Joseph Thackwell acquainting him that- “The Secretary of State has, upon my recommendation, submitted to the Queen your appointment to be a Knight Grand Cross of the Most Honourable Military Order of the Bath, of which Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to approve.” In reply Sir Joseph said- “To be promoted to the highest military honour is most flattering to the pride of an old soldier, and to have been recommended to Her Most Gracious Majesty’s favour by your Grace, under whose guiding wand I served some campaigns, is a matter of congratulation of which I may well be proud”.’

His four sons became officers in the British Army, though in Edward Joseph’s case, it was only briefly before he was called to the Bar. His second son, Major-General William de Wilton Roche Thackwell (1834–1910), served in the Crimean War and in Egypt in 1882. His third son, Osbert Dabitôt Thackwell (1837–1858), was lieutenant in the 15th Bengal Native Infantry. He was killed in the street in Lucknow,by some of the sepoys on 20 March 1858, following its siege, and capture. Final day of fighting before its recapture. He was twenty-one years old. His fourth son, Francis John Roche Thackwell, served in the Royal Irish Lancers, and died in India in 1869 from wounds inflicted by a tiger.

His nephew Joseph Edwin Thackwell, CB (1813-1900) also served in the British Army, serving as Aide-de-Camp to his uncle when commanding the Meerut Division in India in 1852–53; he also served in the Crimean War, and also became a lieutenant general. His brother-in-law, Edmund Roche 3rd Hussars, also served as his Aide-de-Camp, and also became a general. Edmund Roche’s only daughter Caroline Matilda Georgiana Roche [Sir Joe’s niece] married Sir Joe’s grandson Lt.-Col. Joseph Edward Lucas Thackwell.

It is not entirely clear yet whether the girls had children, but the eldest two sons definitely did; Edward Joseph Thackwell (1827-1903) had four sons, and a daughter, and Major-General William de Wilton Roche Thackwell (1834–1910) had one son, and two, probably three daughters.

All of Edward Joseph Thackwell’s sons also had army careers, and most of his grandsons served in the army, if only relatively briefly. The one standout Thackwell son who didn’t serve in the army unlike his father, grandfather, uncles, and cousins is William W. R. Thackwell’s son, Edward Francis Thackwell (1868 -1935) who had married Kitty Pope-Hennessey in 1894. Is he the black sheep of that generation?