Poor little rich girl – Pauline Roche 1835 – 1894

I love Pauline Roche, she’s the sort of relation everyone should have in their family history. Her story is so bizarre that it reads like a novel.

She is John Roche’s great-granddaughter, and in an unintended way, one of the major beneficiaries of his will, at her marriage, she was said to have about £7,000 (roughly £ 7.5m today). So to set her in context; Pauline Roche is Ernest O’Bryen‘s first cousin on her mother’s side. Her mother Jane is John Roche O’Bryen‘s eldest sister. She is also his second cousin on her father’s side, because William Roche, Pauline’s father is their ( Jane and John Roche O’Bryen) first cousin once removed.

Vatican City Bridge and St Peters
Vatican City Bridge and St Peters

Pauline was born in Rome in 1835, and her father died the same year, when she was three months old. Her mother died the following year (1836) when she was eleven months old. She becomes John Roche O’Bryen’s ward for not entirely clear reasons.

However, JROB is her uncle, and only he, and Jane O’Bryen were Catholic. All their remaining siblings are Church of Ireland. JROB and Jane/William Roche are the only O’Bryen beneficiaries of John Roche’s estate. It is also reasonable to consider other factors.  In 1836, John Roche O’Bryen is married with two young children, Emily who is four, and Henry (the future Mgr O’Bryen) who is almost exactly the same age as Pauline. None of the other O’Bryen siblings have established families, Robert marries that year, and Stephen the year after. 1836 is also the year that Henry Hewitt O’Bryen Senior dies, so Pauline’s grandmother Mary O’Bryen is a recent widow.

It may also be as simple as the fact that John Roche O’Bryen is almost twice as rich as all his remaining siblings, and mother put together.  Robert, Stephen, and Mary O’Bryen were the main beneficiaries from their father’s will, but the majority of their inheritance was from their parents’  £4,000 marriage settlement, which Mary (Roche) O’Bryen was still benefitting from until her death in  1852; whereas JROB had inherited £ 10,000 from his grandfather in 1829. Well, technically he received the income from the money in 4% stock, with his children being the ultimate beneficiaries of the capital on his death, with a number of caveats regarding him receiving the full benefits until he was twenty five, or married. In part, that might explain, his marriage at the age of twenty one, in Bordeaux. Wealth comparisons are notoriously complicated, the measuring worth website can be useful because it provides a range of calculations and comparisons depending on what you are looking for. Using their income value calculation, JROB’s annual income was, a present day equivalent of, over £ 500,000 a year.

Anyway, for what ever reasons, Pauline is part of the O’Bryen family, and is shown living with them in Bristol in 1841, and again in 1851.

Lower Aghada
Lower Aghada, co . Cork
Bellevue, Clifton, Bristol

However in 1847, James Joseph Roche dies, triggering a dispute in the family that culminates in Roche v. O’Brien which goes through the courts in 1848, and 1849. James Joseph Roche was the main beneficiary of John Roche’s will from 1826. It is quite clear that John Roche was attempting to build a Roche dynasty to maintain the family name, and the house that he had built for himself  (Aghada House).   James Joseph Roche, who inherited Aghada from John Roche, married Catherine Callaghan. The marriage itself has all the appearances of being at least in part a commercial link between two merchant families. John Roche’s will refers to his contribution of £4,000 to a marriage settlement in 1821. Coincidently, the same amount, that he contributed to his own daughter’s marriage settlement in 1807.  John Roche “amassed great wealth during the French wars”, and Daniel Callaghan Senior was, “one of the most enterprising and successful merchants of Cork”.  Pauline as a minor of 12 or 13, is a party to the case. Aghada House, and the land was sold in 1853 in the Encumbered Estates Court, with Pauline Roche listed ex parte.

This is where the story gets much, much, more interesting. In 1854, aged about 19, Pauline runs away from home in Bristol, crosses the Irish Sea to her uncle Robert O’Bryen in Cork, and goes to court seeking a change of guardian. It all sounds relatively straightforward, and even better it’s all over the papers, well some of them anyway, The Daily News, in London, the Dublin Evening Post, The Liverpool Mercury and Supplement, and  The Tralee Chronicle.

The Daily News called it a “A singular minor case, involving charges of cruelty against a guardian”, The Dublin Evening Post said it was an “EXTRAORDINARY CASE…..the question at present before the court being whether the guardian of the minor should pay the costs of proceedings consequent upon an alleged system of cruelty practised towards her.”  The Liverpool Mercury headlined the story the “PERSECUTION OF A WARD IN CHANCERY” and the Tralee Chronicle said  “The general nature of the charge against the late guardian appeared to be this – that although he was allowed from 1850 a maintenance of £ 130 per annum, this young lady was not properly fed – had been most cruelly treated and subjected to personal violence.”

Pauline Roche’s maintenance allowance of £ 130 per annum, was a huge sum of money. In modern day terms, it is about £ 180,000 a year. Not bad for a teenager, and possibly quite irritating to your uncle that you are entitled to an equivalent of about thirty per cent of the O’Bryen household income. JROB’s income from the interest on capital is about £ 500,000 p.a.

The reporting is amusing, and shows the Victorian press weren’t so different from todays. The  Dublin Evening Post  manages to muddle up which uncle Pauline runs off to, and the Tralee Chronicle not only gets the uncles wrong, but also has Pauline being mistreated by ” Dr Robert O’Brien, of Belfast”.

However, the gist of the story is still Pauline wants a new guardian, and she says she’s been mistreated. Actually, if her story is true, it’s much worse than that. According to the Daily News, “Miss Roche was a young lady whose constitution was delicate, and therefore, it was contended she required great care and attention, instead of which she was provided with bad food, bad clothes, and was deprived of such necessaries as sugar and butter; she was likewise deprived of horse exercise, which was indispensable to her health. A pony, the bequest of a dying patient…….” –  I particularly like the fact that this was a gift from a dying patient – “was given to her; and when she was deprived of this, a carriage horse was procured, which kicked her off his back, and she refused ever again to mount him. She also complained that upon two occasions he (guardian) beat her severely – that he made her a housekeeper and governess to the younger children, that he led her to believe she was dependent upon his benevolence; and further, that she was not permitted to dine with him and his wife, but sent down to the kitchen with the children and the servants.”

carriage horseThe Dublin Evening Post told us ” she was provided with bad food, bad clothes, and was deprived of such necessaries as sugar and butter; she was likewise deprived of horse exercises which was indispensable to her health………..” and in his answer to the allegations.. “Dr O’Bryen replied that he had treated his niece with kindness – that her preservation from consumption was solely ascribable to his judicious and skilful treatment – that he caused her to be well educated, had given her many accomplishments and a horse to ride, which was not a carriage horse but an excellent lady’s horse – that she upon two occasions told him untruths which required correction, and that he would have punished his own children much more severely.”

And in a fairly un-subtle piece of character assassination;  It was likewise contended that she would have better consulted her own respectability and displayed better taste, if she had abstained from taking such proceedings against her uncle and guardian with whom she had been for so many years.”

The Dublin Evening Post continues, and the story just gets worse. From the reporting, the (Irish) Master of the Rolls, is clearly on Pauline’s side. He “said that a petition was presented by Mr Orpin, the solicitor for the minor, for the purpose of removing the late guardian for misconduct. His lordship made an order on that occasion to the effect that the minor should reside within the jurisdiction of the court, which was indirectly removing her from the protection of the late guardian.”

It continued “The general nature of the charge against the late guardian appeared to be this – that although he was allowed from 1850 a maintenance of  £139 per annum, this young lady was not properly clothed – that she had not been properly fed – had been most cruelly treated and subjected to personal violence. Six or seven years ago she was actually driven to run away, which of course she had since been obliged to repent, and even if she did get education it was the education of a poor relation of the family. The governess who was employed to educate her cousins swore, as he (the Master of the Rolls) understood, that if the minor did get education it was at the expense of the guardian, and that she gave her instructions as a matter of charity. This young lady was obliged to run away, and conceal herself in a neighbouring village, and no person who looked at the subsequent transactions could entertain a doubt but that she had been treated with cruelty. It was sworn by Mr Sweeny, a solicitor of the court, that he was ashamed to walk with her she was so badly dressed.”

The mauling from the Master of the Rolls continued, ” The Master found, and it was actually admitted by the respondent ( JROB) , that he told her on one occasion, her father had left her nothing; that she would be in the poorhouse but for his generosity. He (the Master of the Rolls) adverted to this circumstance  for the purpose of asking this gentleman who struck this young lady, in delicate health, with a horsewhip for having told him, as he represented an untruth – what punishment he deserved for having told her the falsehood that her father had left her nothing?”

letterAnd it just goes on, and on.. ” On the morning of the 4th of May 1854, the transaction took place which led her to write the first letter to her uncle who was now her guardian. It appeared that one of her cousins brought her a piece of leather which the child had got in the study of the late guardian, but not telling her anything about it she asked her to cover a ball, and she did so. He interrogated her on the subject, and having denied she took the leather, he took his horsewhip and struck this delicate young lady a blow which left a severe mark on her back to the present day. His lordship then read the letter of the minor to her uncle in Cork inquiring about her father’s circumstances, and complaining bitterly of the treatment she had received, and stating that, though she was then nineteen years of age, she had no pocket money except a little which had been supplied by friends. His lordship continued to say that the facts contained in that letter were corroborated by the statements of the guardian himself. On another occasion, the minor being in the room with her uncle, his powder-flask was mislaid, and being naturally anxious about it, as there were younger children living in the house, he asked this young lady respecting it, but she laughed at his anxiety, and he struck her a blow, according to his own version, with his open hand, but after the blow of the horsewhip, he (the Master of the Rolls) was inclined to think it was with his fist as she represented.”

So, a doctor in Bristol, in his mid-forties, who admitted in court that “she, upon two occasions, told him untruths which required correction” which seems to have been using his horse whip, and fists, and that  ” he would have punished his own children much more severely.” basically attacks  a teenage girl.

Now the Dublin Evening Post continues in the same vein, ” The general nature of the charge against the late guardian appeared to be this – that although he was allowed from 1850 a maintenance of £ 130 per annum, this young lady was not properly fed – had been most cruelly treated and subjected to personal violence. This young lady was obliged to run away, and conceal herself in a neighbouring village, and no person who looked at the subsequent transactions could entertain a doubt that she had been treated with cruelty. It was perfectly clear that this young lady had been kept ignorant up to a late period of the state of her circumstances.”

And the catalogue of criticism from the Master of the Rolls just continues, and continues. More from the Dublin Evening Post:

  • “Six or seven years ago she was actually driven to run away, which of course she had since been obliged to repent,”
  • “The Master (of the Rolls)…..found that the minor, who was in her nineteenth year,  dined with the servants.”
  • “The Master (of the Rolls) found, and it was actually admitted by the respondent, that he told her on one occasion her father had left her nothing; that she would be in the poorhouse but for his generosity.” 
  • “She got half a pound of butter for a week, but no sugar or any of those matters which were considered by mere menials to be the necessaries of life.”
  • “On the 9th of October a letter was written, by the dictation of this young lady, giving the most exaggerated account of her happiness, and this was alleged to be her voluntary act, though by the same post Mr Orpin (her solicitor) received a letter from her stating that she was under the influence of her aunt when she wrote it.”

And finally, though they get the uncles the wrong way round:

  • “Ultimately, in the absence of her uncle, and late guardian, and apprehending his anger when he returned, she left the house and went to reside with her uncle John (sic) in Cork, her present guardian. A circumstance occurred when Mr Robert O’Bryen (sic) went to recover possession of his ward, which corroborated strongly the minor’s statement. When he was passing through Cork, she was looking out of the window and fainted upon seeing him – so much frightened was she at his very appearance.”

There is a full transcript of the newspaper reports, here.  JROB’s defence of his behaviour is quite extraordinary,and also included in the transcripts. It is something I’ll come back to in another post. 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.

So pompous, self-serving, and an astonishing attack in print on a teenager. Still, greater consideration of that is for another time.

Back to Pauline; she stayed in Ireland, and was married two years later in 1857, aged about 21. According to the “Barrymore Records of the Barrys of County Cork”   “Pauline Roche, (is the) only child of William Roche, son of Lawrence Roche, whose brother, John Roche, amassed great wealth during the French wars, and built Aghada House. John Roche’s only daughter, married to ” O’Brien, (sic) [Henry Hewitt O’Bryen]  of Whitepoint, Queenstown, J.P., left a daughter, who married her cousin, William Roche, and with her husband died shortly after the birth of their only daughter, Pauline, who was entrusted to the guardianship of her uncle, Dr. O’Brien, of Liverpool, and at marriage had a fortune of  £ 7,000.”

Pauline Roche married William Henry Barry, of Ballyadam, who was described as a gentleman. He was also a Justice of the Peace. William was his uncle Henry’s heir and was for many years postmaster of Cork. The Barrys of Ballyadam were part of the vast, interconnected Barry family in Cork. William Henry was  the grandson of William Barry (1757 -1824) , of Rockville, Carrigtwohill, in county Cork. Various branches of the Barry family trace themselves back to the Anglo-Norman invasion of Ireland in the C12th.

In a slightly curious irony, the Master of the Rolls who sat on Pauline Roche’s case in 1855 ( Sir Thomas Berry Cusack-Smith) married into the Smith Barry family, as did Pauline and William’s daughter Mary, making him and Louisa Cusack-Smith, Mary Barry’s husband’s great-uncle and aunt. It’s a small, small world…

Pauline and William Henry Barry had seven children, including William Gerard Barry – the Irish painter, Mary who married into the Smith Barry family of Ballyedmond, and Edith, whose second husband, William Babtie won a Victoria Cross in the Boer War.

Pauline appears to have died in 1894, and various of her children were still living at Ballyadam almost twenty years later.

Is there an O’Bryen-Bagshawe connection?

I have been struggling with this for a while. There are some hints that there is some connection between the Bagshawes and the O’Bryens, it is difficult to work out what it is. It is probably a useful little piece of the jigsaw, and may explain a little more clearly where the O’Bryens come from.

In Philip O’Bryen’s obituary in the Tablet, they say he “ was a cousin of Archbishop Bagshawe,”,  and in “Found Worthy -A Biographical Dictionary of the Secular Clergy of the Archdiocese of Liverpool (Deceased), 1850-2000″  by Brian Plumb,  published by the North West Catholic History Society, Wigan, 2005.  He describes both Monsignor Henry O’Bryen, D.D., and Father Phil, as  a nephew of +E.G. Bagshawe, Nottingham,”. 

The description of “cousin”, is probably closer to the truth, and not necessarily particularly close cousins at that.

The nephew description seems to be wrong, at least on the part of Philip. He and Henry are half-brothers, with a twenty-six age gap between the two of them, and there doesn’t seem to be any sort of link between the Bagshawes on either the O’Bryen side of the family, or on the Grehans – Philip’s mother’s family. Nor does there seem to be any connection from uncles and aunts by marriage.

Henry’s mother was Elizabeth (Eliza) Henderson, born in 1805 – with the description of her birthplace as – “America-British subject.”. So the connection might be there…..

Help

 

Booth Classification – Description of class

Charles Booth  literally walked the streets of London. He was an English social researcher and reformer,and set out to discover the true extent of poverty in London. He published Life and Labour of the People in 1889, and a second volume,  Labour and Life of the People,  in 1891. His research showed 35% of people in the East End were living in abject poverty.A third expanded edition  Life and Labour of the People in London appeared 1902-3.

Booth mapped the entire city (colour-coded from black for poorest to red for richest) and classified the population into eight classes. All the research is available online, including the original notebooks. It’s useful in getting a picture of what sort of neighbourhood people lived in.

Booth Classification Description of class

A The lowest class which consists of some occasional labourers, street sellers, loafers, criminals and semi-criminals. Their life is the life of savages, with vicissitudes of extreme hardship and their only luxury is drink

B Casual earnings, very poor. The labourers do not get as much as three days work a week, but it is doubtful if many could or would work full time for long together if they had the opportunity. Class B is not one in which men are born and live and die so much as a deposit of those who from mental, moral and physical reasons are incapable of better work

C Intermittent earning. 18s to 21s per week for a moderate family. The victims of competition and on them falls with particular severity the weight of recurrent depressions of trade. Labourers, poorer artisans and street sellers. This irregularity of employment may show itself in the week or in the year: stevedores and waterside porters may secure only one of two days’ work in a week, whereas labourers in the building trades may get only eight or nine months in a year.

D Small regular earnings. poor, regular earnings. Factory, dock, and warehouse labourers, carmen, messengers and porters. Of the whole section none can be said to rise above poverty, nor are many to be classed as very poor. As a general rule they have a hard struggle to make ends meet, but they are, as a body, decent steady men, paying their way and bringing up their children respectably.

E Regular standard earnings, 22s to 30s per week for regular work, fairly comfortable. As a rule the wives do not work, but the children do: the boys commonly following the father, the girls taking local trades or going out to service.

F Higher class labour and the best paid of the artisans. Earnings exceed 30s per week. Foremen are included, city warehousemen of the better class and first hand lightermen; they are usually paid for responsibility and are men of good character and much intelligence.

G Lower middle class. Shopkeepers and small employers, clerks and subordinate professional men. A hardworking sober, energetic class.

H Upper middle class, servant keeping class.

Class Description Map colour for streets

A The lowest class of occasional labourers, loafers and semi-criminals Black

B Casual earnings: “very poor” (below 18s. per week for a moderate family) Dark blue

C Intermittent earnings Together “the poor” between 18s. and 21s. per week for a moderate family Light blue Purple

D Small regular earnings

E Regular standard earnings – Above the line of poverty Pink

F Higher class labour – Fairly comfortable good ordinary earnings

G Lower middle class – Well-to-do middle class Red

H Upper middle class – Wealthy

Herman Bicknell and Harriet Bagshawe October 1897

This wedding has entertained me for a while, partly because it is so ludicrously grand, and also for the  guest list, and the wedding presents . It has some members of the wider family at it, though some of the relationships are wildly complicated. Mrs Herman Lescher, for example, was at this point newly widowed, and is the aunt of [Thomas] Edward, Frank Graham,  Carmela , and Adela Lescher, and the wife of Celia O’Bryen’s step-mother’s nephew.  Mrs. Kuypers, is Frank Purssell’s mother in law. Mrs. Charles Cassella, is Edward Lescher’s wife’s aunt,  and then up crop the Roper Parkingtons, though in this incarnation as plain Mrs RP because the knighthood didn’t come until five years later in 1902.

The bride’s parents Judge, and Mrs Bagshawe also crop up at a number of the other weddings, most interestingly Alfred O’Bryen’s wedding in 1900, as does his brother Bishop Bagshawe. Also at some of the other weddings are the Macfarlanes, and the Stanfields,

The other intriguing thing was the almost throwaway line at the end ” the newly married couple left for Milford Haven en-route for Rostellan Castle, County Cork, kindly lent for the honeymoon by Mr. and Mrs Thackwell.”  We’ve come across the Thackwells before; Kitty Pope-Hennessy married Edward Thackwell early in 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.

Rostellan_Castle
Rostellan Castle

Rostellan Castle had been the seat of the Marquis of Thomond for over two hundred years, and was bought by Kitty’s first husband on his retirement. It’s about five miles from Aghada House, which Edward Thackwell’s grandfather bought in 1853, about forty five years after John Roche had built it. It’s all a very small world…………

It all looks so promising, they were both twenty two. He was  born in the spring of 1875, and she was born a little later , in the summer of the same year.  But it all appears to go wrong quite fast, and culminates in a spectacular divorce in 1908.

The Tablet, Page 15, 23rd October 1897

Our Lady of Victories 1908
Our Lady of Victories 1908

The marriage of MR. HERMAN KENTIGERN BICKNELL and Miss HARRIET BAGSHAWE was solemnized at the Pro-Cathedral on Tuesday. The Bishop of Nottingham, uncle of the bride, performed the ceremony, assisted by the Abbot of St. Augustine’s Monastery, and the Very Rev. Canon Bagshawe. The bride, who was given away by her father, Judge Bagshawe, wore a white satin dress with jewelled embroidered front draped with chiffon and Honiton lace. The Bridesmaids were Miss Teresa, Miss Gertrude, and Miss Nelly Bagshawe, sisters of the bride; Miss Henrietta Stanfield, cousin of the bride; Miss H. Bicknell, Miss Muriel Crook, and Miss Frost, cousins of the bridegroom. They wore rose-coloured satin dresses and white felt hats with feathers. Each carried a bouquet of Parma violets and wore a gold bangle set with diamonds, the gift of the bridegroom. The bridegroom was attended by his cousin, Mr. E. Bicknell, as best man. Owing to the large number of wedding guests the reception after the ceremony was held by Judge and Mrs. Bagshawe in the Empress Assembly-room at the Palace Hotel. In the course of the afternoon the newly married couple left for Milford Haven en-route for Rostellan Castle, County Cork, kindly lent for the honeymoon by Mr. and Mrs Thackwell.

Among the many presents were: From the Bridegroom, diamond tiara, two large diamond rings, one large diamond and sapphire ring, gold curb bracelet, gold watch bracelet. From Mrs. Bicknell, diamond crescent brooch, diamond marquise ring; Mrs. Bagshawe, gold and turquoise bracelet ; Judge Bagshawe, silver headed walking stick; Mrs. Hermann Lescher, silver dish and spoon; Mrs. Ullathorne, -silver dish and spoon; Mrs. Mort and Miss Bethell, silver dish; Mrs. Green, silver book marker; Mrs. Danvers Clarke, ivory tusk paper knife; Mrs. Pfachler, photo frame; Miss Roskell, silver frame; Miss N. Roskell, cameo chain bracelet; Miss Pickford, night dress sachet; Lady Parker, large vase; Mr. and Mrs. C. Payne, glass vases; Miss Kerwin, white china vase; Mrs. Shearman, ivory and silver paper knife; Mrs. Fuller, ostrich feather fan; Mrs. Bolton, knife and fork sets; Judge Stonor, silver mounted scent bottle; Mrs. Herbert, turquoise ring; Mr. Morton, Dresden china inkstand; Miss Fortescue, silver mounted purse; Miss N. Fortescue, tortoiseshell carriage clock; Miss Robins, screen; Miss Teresa Bagshawe, gold chain; Mrs. Roper Parkington, books; Miss Gunning, jewel case; Mrs. Cobbold, Nankin vases; Mrs. Noble, blotter; Mrs. Steward, blotter; Lady Macfarlane, antique miniature set with pearls and brilliants; Mrs. Clare, silver mounted scent bottles; Lady Knill, gold lined spoons; Mrs. Hewett, small spoons in case; Mrs. Bagshawe, of Oakes Norton, tortoiseshell and silver paper knife; Miss Eyre, Worcester china vase; Miss Hooper, large flower pot; Mr. and Mrs. Stanfield, dressing case, silver fittings; Mrs. Nettlefold, silver basket; Miss C. Shearman, cushion; Mrs. Troup, silver frame; Lady Austin, hand-painted d’oyleys; Mrs. E. Perry, silver card case; Mrs. Charles Hayes, silver bonbonniere; Mrs. Norman Uniacke, table cloth and d’oyleys; Miss Hall, sacred photos in frame; Count and Countess delle Rochetta, gold and tortoiseshell writing case; Mr. Burton, marble clock; Mrs. Fox, paper knife; Mrs. Payne, silver baskets; Mrs. Kuypers, blotter and paper case; Mrs. Sydney Peters, toast rack; General Sir Frederick Maunsell, tortoiseshell and silver frame; Mrs. D. O’Leary, ivory and silver paper knife; Miss de Freitas Bianco, silver scent bottle; Mr. Bruce, ivory mounted silver bottles; Miss Leeming, antique salt cellars; Mrs. Stafford, silver scent bottle; Mrs. de Colyar, silver bonbonniere; Mrs. Rymer, double silver frame; Miss Henrietta C. Stanfield, silver smelling salts bottle; Mrs. Dunn, frame; Mrs. Bullen, cushion; Miss M. L. Shee, antique casket; Mr. Read, silver pen and pencil; Mr. Fleming, silver frame; Mrs. Mansfield, silver mirror; Miss Allitsen, glove basket; Mademoiselle Delaware, little card case; Miss Gertrude Bagshawe, glove and handkerchief case; Miss Mary Bagshawe, rosary bracelet; Mrs. Le Begue, set of Sevres china plate; Mr. Eland, gold chain bracelet; Mrs. Pridiaux, silver-mounted bottle; Miss Nelly Bagshawe, handkerchief sachet; Miss Lowry, antique gold and silver spoons; Mrs. Semper, Imitation of Christ; Eva and Maurice Stammers, silver and glass sugar basin; Dr. and Mrs. Ball, silver-handled paper knife; Mrs. Chilton, large silver spoons; Misses Chilton, silver preserve jar; Mrs. Jenkins, silver dish; Mrs. Bicknell, cushion, embroidered Indian work; Dr. and Mrs. Bagshawe, large vase; Mrs. O’Brian, silver spoons; Lady de Gee, French clock; Mrs. Clement Bagshawe, casket; Mrs. Charles Goldie, fan; Mr. Waldron, silver tray; Mrs. Henry Slattery, silver frame; Dr. O’Connor, gold and pearl swallow brooch; Mrs. Stephens, vase lamp; Mrs. Anson Yeld, silver salt cellars; Mr. Percy Rogers, ivory and -silver paper knife; Mrs. Lane, silver scent bottle; Mrs. Charles Mathew, antique silver crucifix; Mr. J. Tomlinson, silver napkin rings; Miss Quintor,, menu cards; Miss Graham, silver sugar jar; Mr. James Macarthy, gold bangle set with pearls, emerald shirt pin; Mr. and Mrs. Snead Cox, gold sovereign-purse; Mr. and Mrs. Jessop, silver vases; Mrs. Margetts, handbag fitted; Mr. and Mrs. Pugin, glove and handkerchief bag; Mr. and Mrs. Brown, silver dish for nuts, with cracker; Miss Brown, silver fruit fork; Dr. and Mrs. Ford Anderson, fan; Mr. and Mrs. Jennings, scent bottle; Father Dewar, golden manual; Mr. Owen Lewis, large china vase; Miss C. Bagshawe, necklace of seed pearls; Mr. Nettleship, silver salt cellars; Canon Bagshawe, books; the Bishop of Nottingham, photograph book; Mr. and Mrs. Hubert Stanfield, large silver sugar sifter; Mrs. Charles Cassella, china vase; Mr. Charles Roskell, antique silver dish; Mrs. Charles Russell, silver clock; Miss Henrietta Bicknell, silver purse; Mr. and Mrs. Wood Wilson, inkstand; Mr. Charles Weld, silver horn scent bottle; Father Cox, silver hat brush; Rev. Father Stanfield, work-case; Mrs. Lamb, glass and silver sugar basin. Many other presents were given to the bride and bridegroom, including massive silver salver, silver candlesticks, &c.

 

 

THE BANQUET AT THE MANSION HOUSE. April 1893

The Mansion House, London

There are a number of reasons for including this. Partly it is a great article, and part of English Catholic triumphalism as the community starts to feel more secure in itself. It is also included because there are almost a dozen members of the wider family there. In no particular order:

  • Mr. W. Smith, M.P, He is Alfred O’Bryen’s father-in-law.
  • Judge Bagshawe, appears at a lot of family weddings,and his brother,the Very Rev. Canon Bagshawe, D.D., the Bagshawes are referred to as “cousins” in Fr. Philip O’Bryen’s obituary. Quite what the relationship is I’m still not sure because I can find no evidence to date. 
  • Sir (George) Sherston Baker, Bart., is Irene Roper Parkington’s father in law, and she is Dorothea Bidwell (nee Roper Parkington)‘s sister.
  • Sir H(enry). W(atson). Parker, is Charlotte Purssell’s father in law.
  • Mr. F(ield). Stanfield, is the brother-in law of both the Bagshawes, and his daughter Henrietta marries Joseph Walton’s son, Joseph Arthur.
  • Mr. A(lfred). Purssell, – Alfred Purcell is already quite a major character. His daughter (Frances) Charlotte marries Wilfred Parker, Sir Henry Watson Parker’s son, and his grand-son Alan O’Bryen marries Marie Bidwell, whose mother is Dorothea Bidwell (nee Roper Parkington). 
  • Mr. H(erman). Lescher, His sister-in-law Mary O’Connor Graham Lescher (nee Grehan)  married her father’s step-mother’s nephew, Frank Harwood Lescher. She is a first cousin to the O’Bryens (Alfred, Philip,Ernest, Rex, and Mary) because her father Patrick Grehan III is Celia O’Bryen’s brother.
  • Mr. Cary-Elwes, This could be a number of people because there are quite a few Cary-Elwes. The most likely candidates are either Charles Cary-Elwes who married Edythe Roper Parkington in 1897, and  is one of John Roper Parkington’s sons in law  or possibly his uncle Arthur. If it is Charles, he would be very young, twenty four, to be attending such a grand gathering. It is unlikely to be his father, who is almost always referred to as Capt Cary-Elwes.
  • Major Roper Parkington, Good old JRP has a habit of turning up to practically anything. By this point he was a highly sucessful wine importer, and City business man. As seen from above, one of his daughters married George Sherston Baker’s son, and another married Charles Cary-Elwes, and his grand-daughter Marie married Alan O’Bryen, Ernest’s son.
  • Mr. J. Walton, Q.C.Joseph Walton’s son, Joseph Arthur marries Field Stanfield’s daughter Henrietta

What it also does is give a clear idea of a tight social circle, that is also very inter-related.

The Tablet Page 5, 15th April 1893

THE BANQUET AT THE MANSION HOUSE.

Banquet Mansion House
Egyptian Hall, Mansion House, London

The brilliant scene at the Mansion House on Wednesday night marked at once the crowning hour of an honourable career, and in some sort the closing of a chapter in the story of English Catholicism. A very sympathetic audience listened to the Lord Mayor, when, lapsing for a moment into a strain of personal reminiscence, he told how from earliest manhood onwards he had laboured in silence for the good of the city, and all the world has now witnessed his great reward. And when we speak of the reward which has come to him in his 70th year, for all his patient service of the City of which to-day he is the Chief Magistrate, we are thinking less of the proud position he has won than of those golden opinions which the manner of his winning it has brought to him from all sorts and conditions of men,.

If ever a man in the hour of realized hope could look back upon a stainless record, or attained the object of a long and honourable ambition with the knowledge that in the pursuit of it he had never swerved, even by the hesitation of moment, from the path of the highest right, that man is the present Lord Mayor. In his case the battle of duty was fought in the open, steadily and unflinchingly, and his conduct has earned the recognition and the gratitude of men, of whatever creed, who care to see the triumph of truth and principle over shuffling and insincerity. But it will do more than that, it will do more than add to the general esteem in which Mr. Alderman Knill is held by all who know him. His steadfast constancy to Catholic principle upon that large and public stage, where all the greatness of the City was behind him to act as a sounding-board to his words, will give new heart to many a poor co-religionist for whose obscure trial or sordid troubles the world has neither heed nor care.

Many a little hidden tragedy and loss of self-respect, away in villages and remote country towns, as well as here in London, may be averted by this one conspicuous example of Catholic faithfulness ; and long after Mr. Alderman Knill has passed away the memory of that famous day in the Guildhall when he risked the ambition of a life-time, for many a tempted man may help to dip the trembling scales on the side of fidelity and truth. But, as the Cardinal hinted the other night, the career of the Lord Mayor offers another lesson. In his case, to the tenacity and courage which make, perhaps, the groundwork of his character, have been added not only a singular simplicity and directness of purpose, but also qualities which are less often associated with that resoluteness of which he has given such signal proof.

Throughout all this quarrel Mr. Alderman Knill has borne himself not only as a fearless and honourable man, but always with the considerateness and the unvarying courtesy of a Christian gentleman. The silken glove has been oftener felt than the iron hand, he has never fought for trivialities or shown himself unbending except for essentials, and he has been ever ready to respect the scruples, and, when that was possible, even the prejudices of his opponents. It was impossible not to think of these things on Wednesday evening, and not to regard that glittering scene as in some sort the fulfilment of a career. The time of struggle and doubt, indeed, was over long ago, and for many months the Lord Mayor has held with assured ease, his office of Chief Magistrate of London. He has offered his splendid hospitality to all that is famous and distinguished in the land, and looked down upon more brilliant crowds. But the sight of the guests who had gathered at his bidding on Wednesday night to do honour to the Cardinal must have affected him in a different and a quite separate way.

In that famous banqueting hall, officially presided over by the Lord Mayor and the Sheriffs of the City were the representatives of all Catholic England. The Cardinal and the Bishops, Peers and Members of Parliament, the clergy, Judges and leaders of the Bar, journalists, architects, naval and military officers, country gentlemen, artists, merchants, the officers of the leading Catholic associations—all that goes to make up the world of English Catholicism was there. Never since Cardinal Pole was invited by the Mayor and citizens in the year 1554, had a Prince of the Church been thus officially received, and never assuredly for three hundred years and more had there been such an assemblage of Catholics within the walls of the city.

To many that scene seemed like a visible triumph spread out before the eyes of the man who presided there so quietly and graciously and yet had risked so much for conscience’ sake, and risking it had struck such a signal blow for religious freedom and so vindicated for Catholicism its rightful position before the people. But whether considered, as it was designed, as an opportunity for offering public welcome to the Cardinal, or as, in fact, it also became a demonstration of regard for a host whom his guests delighted to honour, this memorable banquet was an unqualified success.

THE BANQUET.

Bennison, E. R.; Lady Knill, Wife of Sir Stuart Knill, Lord Mayor of London (1892-1893); City of London Corporation; http://www.artuk.org/artworks/lady-knill-wife-of-sir-stuart-knill-lord-mayor-of-london-18921893-52065
Lady Knill, Wife of Sir Stuart Knill, Lord Mayor of London (1892-1893); copyright.City of London Corporation;

The banquet accordingly took place on Wednesday evening, when Cardinal Vaughan and the Bishops of the English Catholic Hierarchy, and a large gathering of the Catholic clergy and laity, met at the Mansion House. The guests, who numbered upwards of three hundred, were received by the Lord Mayor and Lady Mayoress in the Reception Hall. Cardinal Vaughan, on entering, was met by the City Marshal, and, preceded by two torch-bearers carrying lighted candles, was conducted into the building. Here he was received by the Lord Mayor, who, with his mace and sword-bearers, advanced to meet his Eminence. All the Bishops wore their silk robes and chains. After the greeting, the guests passed into the Egyptian Hall, where the banquet was served. On the left side of the Lord Mayor sat the Cardinal, and on the right side the Duke of Norfolk.

Besides these, the invited guests were : The Earl of Denbigh, the Bishop of Clifton, Archbishop Scarisbrick, 0.S.B., the Earl of Albemarle, K.C.M.G., the Bishop of Liverpool, the Earl of Westmeath, the Earl of Gainsborough, Lord William Nevill, the Bishop of Nottingham, Lord Braye, the Bishop of Birmingham; the Right Rev. Lord Petre, the Bishop of Newport and Menevia, Lord Norreys, Admiral Lord Walter Kerr, the Bishop of Shrewsbury, Lord Beaumont, Lord North, the Bishop of Emmaus, Lord Arundell of Wardour, the Bishop of Northampton.

Lord Herries, the Bishop of Southwark, Lord Emly, the Bishop of Leeds, Lord Morris, the Right Hon. the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, the Bishop of Middlesbrough, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, the Bishop of Portsmouth, the Bishop of Hexham and Newcastle, Lord Acton, the Bishop of Cisamus, the Bishop of Salford, the Right Hon. the O’Conor Don, the Bishop of Priene, Mgr. Gilbert, Mr. Justice Matthew, the Hon. Mgr. Talbot, D.D., the Very Rev. Provost Wenham, Mr. Austin, M.P., the Very Rev. Canon Bamber, Count de Torre Diaz, the Very Rev. Canon Purcell, the Hon. A. Petre, the Very Rev. Canon Keens, Mr. W. Smith, M.P., the Rev. Father Sidgreaves, F.R.A.S., Sir Walter de Souza, the Rev. Dom Gilbert Dolan, Sir G. Errington, Bart., the Very Rev. F. A. Gasquet, D.D., Sir G. Clifford, Bart., Mgr. Carroll, Sir Philip Rose, Bart., the Rev. Bernard Vaughan, S.J.

Sir W. Vavasour, Bart., Mgr. Cahill, Sir Percy Grace, Bart., Mgr. Carr, Judge Stonor, Mgr. Johnson, D.D., the Rev. G. S. Delaney (chaplain), Colonel Vaughan, Mgr. Howlett, D.D., Judge Bagshawe, Mgr. Fenton, Sir C. M. Wolseley, Bart., Mgr. Clarke, D.D., Sir W. Blount, Bart., Mgr. Motler, Sir W. Hamilton Dalrymple, Bart., Mgr. Williams, Sir Sherston Baker, Bart., Mgr. McKenna, Sir R. Bamewell, Bart., General Sir A. Herbert, K.C.B., Sir H. W. Parker, the Very Rev. G. Callaghan, the Very Rev. Canon McCave, D.D., the Very Rev. W. T. Gordon, the Very Rev. R. Butler, D.D., the Rev. F. Rymer, D. D., the Very Rev. F. M. Wyndham, Mr. R. Berkeley, the Mayor of Barnstaple, Mr. Percy Fitzgerald, the Very Rev. Canon Barry, Mr. C. A. Scott-Murray, the Very Rev. Canon Akers, the Mayor of Gravesend, the Very Rev. Canon Murnane, Mr. J. S. Croucher, Mr. Hussey Walsh, the Very Rev. Canon Bagshawe, D.D.,

Chevalier Sperati, the Very Rev. Canon Fannan, Mr. N. Synott, Mr. Britten, Mr. E. Wolseley, Mr. J. P. Wallis, the Very Rev. Canon O’Callaghan, Mr. J. Hunt Lilly, the Very Rev. Canon Moore, the Very Rev. Canon O’Halloran, the Very Canon Lalor, Captain Richey, Mr. G. W. Winzar, Mr. James Coen, Mr,. John Knill, Mr. Soulsby, Colonel E. Burnaby, Mr. R. Pargeter, Mr. S. J. Nicholls, F.S.A., Mr. B. F. Costelloe, the Very Rev. Canon Franklin, Mr. G. Whitlaw, the Very Rev. Canon Wilson, 0.S.B., Mr. J. Kenyon, Mr. J. T. Perry, the Very Rev. Canon Randerson, Mr. G. A. Bouvier, Mr. W. Farren, Mr. E. W. Beck, the Rev. G. Richardson, Mr. S. Gatti, Major Gape, Mr. F. de Bernhardt, the Rev. A. B. Gordon, Mr. J. Wallace, Mr. A. Hornyold, Mr. H. W. Bliss, Mr. J. Borrajo, Mr. F. Whitgreave, Junr., Mr. J. Dunn, the Very Rev. Canon Grady, Mr. L. T. Cave, The O’Clery, the Very Rev. M. Kearney, the Rev. C. Tochetti, Mr. Arthur A’Beckett, Mr. A. J. Blount, the Very Rev. M. Gaughren, the Rev. J. Holder, Mr. E. de Lisle, F.S.A., Mr. A. Boursot, the Very Rev. Canon Scott, D.D., the Rev. Dr. W. Barry, Mr. S. Tapprell Holland, Mr. R. A. Harting, the Very Rev. Canon Luck, the Rev. T. F. Gorman, Mr. W. Hays, Mr. P. Wittan, the Rev. G. B. Cox, the Rev. E. J. Watson, Mr. W. M. Honneybun, Mr. E. Tegart, Mr. W. Langdale, Mr. T. Rawlinson, Mr. Edward Petre, Mr. L. Eyre, the Very Rev. J. Procter, Mr. J. H. Pollen, the Rev. Bernard Ward, Mr. J. H. Powell, Mr. F. Stanfield, Mr. A. Purssell, the Very Rev. Provost Dawson, the Very Rev. M. Kelly, D.D., Mr. F. R. Ward, Mr. W. S. Lilly, the Very Rev. Canon Brownlow, the Very Rev. J. P. Bannin, Mr. Lane-Fox, Mr. Wegg-Prosser, the Rev. J. Minnett, the Very Rev. F. Henry, Mr. J. St. Lawrence, Mr. Wilfrid Ward, the Very Rev. Canon Mackintosh, the Rev. D. E. Dewar,

Mr. H. Lescher, Mr. S. Lickorish, Mr. Fitzherbert Brockholes, Mr. Bolton, Mr. Cary-Elwes, the Rev. F. J. Sheehan, the Rev. M. Fanning, Colonel H. Walpole, the Rev. Father E. Badger, Mr. Snead Cox, Mr. H. Stourton, Mr. C. R. Parker, the Rev: E. Pennington, the Rev. Father Eyre, S.J., Mr. J. B. Hardman, Mr. W. Meynell, the Rev. F. Skrimshire, Mr. C. A. Buckler, Mr. Lister Drummond, the Rev. A. White, M.R., the Rev. Dr. W. J. B. Richards, Mr. Everard Green, the Rev. C. A. Cox, the Rev. W. Barry, Mr. Santley, the Rev. E. Buckley, Mr. A. Oates, the Rev. E. Martin, Major Roper Parkington, Mr. J. McAdam, Mr. Borff, Mr. E. Bellasis, Mr. E. D. Purcell, the Rev. W. Fleming, M.R., Colonel Tully, Mr. Murphy, Q.C., Mr. L. C. Lindsay, the Rev. T. Graham, D.D., Mr. G. Blount, Mr. J. Walton, Q.C., Mr. W. Wilberforce, the Rev. D. Skrimshire, Mr. A. B. Glewy, the Rev. R. Buckler, Mr. E. J. Fooks, Mr. C. Gasquet, Mr. T. Meyer, Mr. A. B. Kelly, Mr. F. R. Langton, Mr. Basil Fitzherbert, the Rev Dr. Moyes, Mr. St. George Mivart, F.R.S., the Rev. R. C. Bone, the Rev. W. Ignatius Dolan, the Rev. J. S. Vaughan, Major Trevar, the Rev. Father Hayes, S.J., Mr. J. Brand, Mr. Ogilvie Forbes, Mr. S. D. Williams, Mr. J. Steuart, Mr. W. H. Bishop, Mr. J. S. Purcell, C.B., Mr. J. V. Hornyold, Mr. J. Incledon, Mr. Albert A’Beckett, Mr. W. D’Alton, Mr. C. Kegan Paul, Mr. W. H. J. Weale, Mr. A. R. Dowling, Mr. A. C. Wood, F.S.A., Mr. Hillier Gosselin, Mr. W. H. Lyall, Mr. H. D. Harrod,F.S.A., Mr. C. R. Parker, Jun., Mr. R. Cafferata, Mr. R. Woodword, Mr. W. S. Craig, Mr. Wilfrid Herbert, Mr. W. Pyke, Mr. J. Hosslacher, Dr. O’Reilly, Mr. P. P. Pugin, Mr. Washbourne, Mr. F. T. Silvertop, Mr. W. Keatinge, Mr. E. Hibbert, Mr. W. Keane, Mr. R. H. C. Nevile, Mr. Casella, Mr. W. G. Freeman, Mr. J. S. Hansom, Mr. F. M. Lonergan, Mr. J. P. Munster, Mr J. F. Caulfield, Mr. C. Kent, Mr. R. Sankey, Mr. R. W. Berkeley, Mr. J. B. Carney, Mr. R. J. Walmesley, and Mr. C. T. Layton.

After the tables were cleared, The LORD MAYOR rose to propose the first toast,—That toast, he said, always uppermost in the hearts of Englishmen, and especially citizens of London, the health of the Sovereign, under whose gentle sway the country has lived and prospered for more than fifty years—her Gracious Majesty Queen Victoria. Since the very commencement of her reign, said Alderman Knill, all have been fully conscious that she has entered into the griefs and joys of every one of her subjects, and that she has the desire to alleviate those sorrows, and to participate in their rejoicings. Their loyalty was almost warmed to love when they recognized her great sympathy with her Catholic subjects in all their troubles. To her all homage was due ; and their prayers were, that she who had ever been an example in the acknowledgment of her dependence upon a Higher Power, might be long spared to rule over them and see her people united and contented. Following the old tradition still retained in the great city’s walls, he prefixed the health of him, the great Head of the Church, Christ’s Vicar, who, seated on Roman Heights in incense laden atmosphere, kept an ever watchful eye on every portion of his vast flock ; to him who raises up his mighty voice to lead in all emergencies—the Holy Eather who speaks to all as children. He asked them to drink to the” Pope and the Queen.” The LORD MAYOR proposed the second toast—” The Prince of Wales, the Princess of Wales, and all the Royal Family.” We love and reverence them, he said, as our fellow-citizens. Almost every one of our Princes has connected himself with one of our Guilds, and like our much loved Queen, they are always ready and willing to do all in their power to help the needy and suffering. Whenever any dire calamity strikes the land,one of our Princes or Princesses comes forward to assuage the grief and remedy the evil. He trusted that H.R.H. the Princess of Wales might soon again be restored to health—she, our Peerless Princess whom all loved and honoured.

In rising to propose the third toast, that of “His Eminence Cardinal Vaughan,” the LORD MAYOR said that it was customary at this juncture to say something about our Defensive Forces and Legislative Houses, but their special purpose of meeting together was to do honour to Cardinal Vaughan. Let him do that. He (the Lord Mayor), had endeavoured to bring together not only representatives of one body, but representatives of trade and guilds, of art and science and literature, peers, commoners, sculptors, poets and historians, our professors and scholars —all had come to pay their tribute of love and homage to his Eminence. He (the Lord Mayor), as Chief Magistrate of the great City of London, felt unworthy in this, his 70th year, of being allowed such an honour as to entertain his Eminence, and he assured his guests that he should never forget that honour. It was with the greatest pleasure that he wished his Eminence the best of blessings and the best of health to contend with the work he had before him. He had the virtues and actions of all his predecessors, and he invited all to drink, with all sincerity of heart, the health of his Eminence Cardinal Vaughan.

CARDINAL VAUGHAN, who was warmly greeted on rising to reply, said that he heartily thanked the company for the great honour they had paid to his colleagues and himself. He felt conscious of his unfitness in many ways for the post in which he had been placed. But he could assure them that he felt in no manner discouraged, and that he should always do his very best. (Cheers.) The honour paid to him and his colleagues that night was the greater and the more acceptable when they recognized in the Lord Mayor not only a genuine Englishman but a typical Catholic layman. (Cheers.) He had upheld his great religious principles in a way that had won for him the admiration of the whole world. (Cheers.) That great municipal hall had from time to time been placed at the disposal of various religious bodies, who, by their position and by their work, had a claim to an opportunity of furthering projects which they wished to carry out for the good of their fellow creatures. He rejoiced that an opportunity had now been afforded to the religious body to which nearly all those present belonged of meeting together in the same place. They, too, had at heart the interests of the community at large. (Cheers.) Their history was bound up with the history of England ; their religion was at the basis of civilization; they represented, as strongly and as consistently as any body of men to be found in the country, the vital and noble principle of Christian education. (Cheers.) They contended not merely for the traditions of their creed, but for the great principle of natural law that parents ought to be able to educate their children in such schools as they decided upon and thought fit. (Cheers.) In doing this no one ought to be subject to any loss or deprivation. (Cheers.) They demanded a jealous watchfulness over parental liberties, and they would withstand any education system which they believed to be destructive of those liberties. In this they felt that they were acting in common with the great majority of the people of this country. (Cheers.) He was glad, in replying to the compliment which the Lord Mayor had paid them, that he should have been enabled to declare in that great hall how devotedly attached the whole Catholic body in England were to the civil institutions of the country and to the maintenance of Christian and parental liberties. (Cheers.) They all feel deeply grateful to the Lord Mayor for his kindness to them on that memorable occasion. (Cheers.)

The DUKE OF NORFOLK, in proposing ” the health of the Lord Mayor,” said all Catholics were grateful to him for the kind thought that prompted him to bring them together in that splendid hall in this Low Week. That week had, as far tack as he could remember, been the traditional week for Catholic reunions. The Bishops had always met then to take counsel with one another, and for the arrangement of their pastoral work. The Catholic School Committee, the body to whose special care had been entrusted all that concerned the vital’ work of Catholic primary education, had also chosen that week for their deliberations. So too the annual reception at Archbishop’s House had been timed to suit the convenience of the many Catholics who came to town for Low Week. In other years, however, they had done their several work and then gone their several ways without thought of any common trysting place. This year the kindness of the Lord Mayor had led him to offer them his splendid hospitality, and afford them one more common meeting ground, at the Mansion House. He eulogized the qualities of the Lord Mayor, saying that he represented— and represented well—the beating heart and centre of that vast empire to which they all belonged. He concluded with a reference to the fact that the Lord Mayor had just entered upon his 70th year, and then went on to say that his hearers might not be so well familiar with another little piece of family history. Mr. Alderman Knill had a grandson who had had the temerity to begin his seventh year precisely when the Lord Mayor was beginning his 70th. He (the Duke) thought they were well justified, therefore, in hoping that another generation of citizens might be ruled from the Mansion by a scion of the house of Knill. The LORD MAYOR, in reply, said he felt the great honour that the Duke of Norfolk had paid him. He was indeed proud to be at the head of this dear city of London, and loved his name to be connected with its name. He had endeavoured, as every one in his position would, to do his duty, and he trusted that to the last day of his life he would act on the principle of doing openly what his conscience ordered him. He loved his fellow-citizens and had endeavoured and would endeavour to put away any prejudice in favour of his co-religionists, and act justly and impartially by all.

The following was the Menu :

POTAGES. Tortue et Tortue Claire.

POISSONS. Tranches de Saumon a la Morny,Turbot. Blanchaille

RELEVES Timbale a la Bayonne, Escalopes de Cailles a la Monte Carlo.

ENTREES. Cote d’Agneau. Canetons aux Petits Pois. Jambon au Madere.

ENTREMETS. Chaudfroid a la Strasbourg. Bavarois aux Conserves. Gelees aux Pistaches.

RELEVES Fanchonettes a la Biscottini. Supremes d’Abricots a la Creme.

DESSERT.Bombe a la Francaise. Crotites a L’Indienne.

The following was the programme of music performed during dinner by the Coldstream Guards’ Band (by permission of Colonel J. B. Sterling) :

GRAND MARCH “The Silver Trumpets’ Viviani.

SELECTION “Haddon Hall” Sir A. Sullivan.

VALSE ” Serenade ” O’Meta.

SELECTION ” Cavalleria Rusticana” Mascagni.

ENTR’ ACTE “La Colombe” Gounod.

MENUET DE MANON Massenet.

SELECTION “La Mascotte” Audran.

VALSE “Espana” Waldteuftl. PART SONG “Sweet and Low” Sir, J. Barnby.

SELECTION “II Mercante de Venezia” Pinsuti. CONDUCTOR: MR. C. THOMAS.

The following was the programme of vocal music sung after dinner by Master Ernest Howland, Master Harold Ohlson, Mr. John Bartlett, Mr. Edgar Pownall, Mr. A. Sinclair Mantell, and Mr. Charles Radburn, of the choir of the Pro-Cathedral, Kensington :

GRACE.

“GOD SAVE THE QUEEN.” “AD MULTOS ANNOS.”

“The Crusader” ” Spring” “Sing we and chaunt it” “Village Blacksmith” “Stars of the Summer Night” “When Evening’s Twilight”  Pinsuti. Macfarren. Pearsall. Hatton. Hatton. Hatton.

THE TOAST OF “THE POPE AND THE QUEEN : SUBSEQUENT ISSUES.

At a meeting of the Court of Common Council on Thursday afternoon, Mr. W. 0. Clough, M.P., asked the Lord Mayor if he was correctly reported in that morning’s paper, as having, at a banquet at the Mansion House the previous night, placed the name of the Pope before that of the Queen in submitting the first toast to his distinguished guests. The Lord Mayor, who was cheered on rising, said he had very great pleasure in answering the question put to him. When he accepted the office of Lord Mayor he assumed that every one understood that he would not allow anything whatever to interfere with his conscientious convictions. He had taken care ever since he had been at the Mansion House to do nothing whatever to interfere with the scruples, or even the prejudices, of his fellow-citizens, and he had cordially given the use of the Mansion House to every religious body which was doing work in this great metropolis. While saying that, he believed that, as a Catholic, he had a right to receive as his own honoured guests those of his faith to whom he looked up with high reverence and respect. It was his original intention to make the banquet a private one, and not to invite the press, but it was represented to him that if that were done it might be thought that he was ashamed of what he was doing. That was certainly not the case. In regard to the particular toast, he said he was glad to follow the example of the City Guilds and others, who invariably recognized a High Power, and gave their first toast in the form of “Church and Queen.” He gloried that that was so in the City of London, and though he had not been able to take part in the spiritual devotions of his fellow-citizens, he rejoiced in their manifestations of religious devotion. Following that principle, he, addressing guests who looked upon the Holy Father in Rome as the head of their Church, as he did, coupled the name of the Pope with that of the Queen, not abating in so doing one jot of the loyalty and affection which they entertained for her gracious Majesty. The Lord Mayor was loudly cheered on resuming his seat.

Mr. Clough reserved the right to raise the question on another occasion.

The Coronation Anniversary – Rome 1881

Yet again, in a slightly Zelig-like way Mgr HH is lurking in the background

The Tablet Page 17, 12th March 1881

ROME. (FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.)

Vatican City Bridge and St Peters
Vatican City Bridge and St Peters

March 6, 1881.

THE VATICAN,

On Sunday, Feb. 27, and on several other days last week, the Holy Father admitted to his private Mass a number of distinguished personages. On the 28th, audience was given to the Councillors of the Italian Catholic Young Men’s Society, headed by the President-General, Professor Commendatore Filippo Tolli, who presented Peter Pence to the amount of 6,000 francs, and addresses from the branches of the society in various Italian cities, including Sorrento, Ancona, Brescia, Parma, Lucca, Turin, Benevento, Viareggio, Verona, Viterbo, Padua, Siena, Genoa, Venice, Pisa,, Bologna, and Milan. Among the recent offerings of Peter Pence was the sum of 20,000 francs in gold presented by a deputation of the managers of the Bank of Rome, consisting of Prince Gabrielli, President ; Marchese Mereghi and Cavaliere Rosellini.

On the occasion of the anniversaries of his creation and coronation the Holy Father expended by means of his Private Almoner 10,000 francs in the purchase of beds for poor families in Rome.

On the first of March the members of the College of Masters of Apostolical Ceremonies, headed by the prefect, Monsignor Cataldi, were received in private audience.

constantine
Grand Duke Konstantin Konstantinovich

On Ash-Wednesday several families of distinguished strangers were admitted to the Pope’s private chapel and received communion from the hands of his Holiness, who subsequently distributed the ashes. At twelve o’clock the same day the Grand Duke Constantine, nephew of the Emperor of Russia, visited the Vatican in state. His Highness wore a military uniform and was accompanied by a brilliant suite. The pontifical officials wore full dress uniforms and the Russian Grand Duke was received with all due honours and remained some time in private audience with his Holiness. He then proceeded to pay the customary visit of ceremony to Cardinal Jacobini.

Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich
Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich

The Grand Dukes Sergius and Paul likewise paid visits to Leo XII. and the Secretary of State. They were attired in military uniforms.

In a rather tragic footnote: The Grand Dukes’ visit to the Holy Father was eleven days before the assassination of their father Tsar Alexander II in St Petersburg on 13 March 1881.

THE CORONATION  ANNIVERSARY.

On the 3rd of March, the third anniversary of the coronation of Leo XIII., solemn High Mass was celebrated in the Sistine Chapel. His Holiness, wearing the Tiara and preceded and followed by the officials of the Noble Ante-camera, entered the chapel at a quarter past eleven a.m., and took his seat on the throne.

Prince Oscar Bernadotte
Prince Oscar Bernadotte

The Mass was pontificated by Cardinal Alimonda, the first creation of his Holiness present in Rome. The music consisted of Fazzini’s Mass, with the afifiaruit and Benedictus of Baini. In the Royal tribune sat the Grand Dukes Sergius, Paul and Constantine, of Russia, arid the Princes Oscar and Charles of Sweden.

Prince Carl of Sweden
Prince Carl of Sweden

The Grand Master of the Order of Malta and two Knights Commendatori were in another tribune. All the Ambassadors and Ministers accredited to the Holy See, with the members of their several Legations, were also present. Great numbers of the Roman nobles and their wives occupied reserved seats. The benches for ladies were crowded. Prince Ruspoli, Master of the Sacred Hospice, was unable to attend on account of illness. All the Cardinals in Rome, and an extraordinary number of Patriarchs, Archbishops, and Bishops, including the Archbishop of Halifax, the Bishops of Clifton, Salford, Maitland, Ossory and Dubuque, were in seats behind the Cardinals. Monsignors Stonor, Kirby, and O’Bryen were also present. In the posts allotted to visitors I noticed Sir George and Lady Bowen, Lady Eyre, Marchesa Murphy and daughter, Mrs. K Airlie, Miss Fane, Miss Gillow, Mr. Garstin, High Sheriff of county Louth, Prince Windischgratz, Hon. and Rev. Algernon Stanley, Mr. Sweetman, Mr. and Mrs. Smithwick, Mr. and Miss Donahue, Mrs. Meynell, Mr. Meagher, Mr. and Mrs. Butler, &c. Among the Chamberlains were Messrs. Winchester, Fairlie, Grissell, De Raymond, and O’Gorman. Before descending from his private apartments the Pope received in private audience Prince Altieri, Commandant of the Noble Guards, and the higher officials of that corps, the Commandants of the Swiss Guards and of the Palatine Guards, and Gendarmes. In the Throne-room, the room of the chapel, and in the Tapestry-hall the other officers of these corps were drawn up to receive his Holiness. After the Mass special audience was given to the Grand Master of the Order of Malta, who subsequently paid a visit of ceremony to Cardinal Jacobini, Secretary of State. In the evening Monsignor Rotelli, formerly Archdeacon of Perugia, and now Bishop of Montefiascone, was received in private audience, and remained some time in conversation with his Holiness.

The Carnival – Rome 1881

This is included because it makes me smile, and even though he’s nor directly mentioned because Mgr O’Bryen was there. Once again, it’s the Tablet coming up trumps…….

THE CARNIVAL

Piazza delle Quattro Fontane
Piazza delle Quattro Fontane, Roma

Few persons resident in Rome regret the termination of, the Carnival, except perhaps the very thoughtless and foolish who desire perpetual excitement. The extension of the Carnival on Sunday February 27th, to the Via Nazionale and Maccao was a novelty. Between the Via Quattro Fontane and the upper end of the Via Nazionale thirteen arches, each furnished with 120 jets of gas, were erected so as to form a tunnel of brilliant light ending in a large star of Italy. The cost of this gas illumination was 200 lire per hour.

Stazione Termini Roma c.1890
Stazione Termini Roma c.1890

The façade of the railway station was splendidly illuminated, and the Piazza dell’ Independenza was a garden of coloured lanterns. The procession of carriages in the Via Nazionale was a fiasco, and the line of rails for the trams (which were, of course, stopped for the time) was an evident nuisance. The throwing of cauliflowers or cabbages, for such were many of the so-called bouquets of flowers, was more violent than usual, in spite of a notification to the public that violent throwing either of confetti or flowers was an offence punishable by the Questura.

Via Nationale Roma
Via Nationale Roma

Five persons were wounded in the Via Nazionale on that Sunday, not reckoning the contusions and lacerations inflicted on the eight or ten persons flung down by the horses of the Duca di Fiano. The last day of the Carnival was somewhat wet. During the previous night heavy showers of rain fell and reduced the Corso to a lane of mud. The afternoon cleared up and there was nothing to prevent the moccolletti, and the cremation of Father Carnival, whose wife, to judge by her tottering steps guided by a pair of stalwart supporters, seemed to feel deeply the fate of her spouse. The cremation of Corso Forzoso, represented by a sarcophagus containing paper money, excited much applause. Lanterns of various colours, labelled twenty franc pieces, were carried round in triumph.

Piazza del Popolo from the Pincio
Piazza del Popolo from the Pincio
The Pincio
The Pincio

The Pincio was at the same time illuminated. The theatres, especially the Costanzi, which were turned into dancing saloons, were crowded to excess, and were kept open almost all-night. The pawn offices were in great request, more articles being put in pledge in the Carnival week than during the three previous months.

Grehan of Clonmeen

Clonmeen House

 Technically the Grehans of Clonmeen are the senior branch of the family, because Peter Grehan is Thady Grehan’s eldest son  by his first wife. The introduction to the Grehan Estate Papers at  the Boole Library, University College Cork helps explain the origins of the estate.

“The Grehan’s, originally prosperous Dublin wine merchants, first acquired land in Co. Cork through a legacy of the lands of Clonmeen left by one John Roche in about 1830.”  John Roche was Stephen Grehan Senior’s uncle twice over. His wife Mary Roche (nee Grehan) was Stephen’s aunt, and his sister Mary Grehan (nee Roche) was Stephen’s mother.Stephen Grehan Senior ([1776] – 1871), the main beneficiary of Roche’s will, then set about acquiring more land in the area and also in County Tipperary. This work was carried on by Stephen’s son George ([1813] -1885), who in about 1860 moved from his Dublin home at 19 Rutland Square, to take up permanent residence at Clonmeen, where his son Stephen Junior(1859 – 1937 ) was raised.

Clonmeen Lodge
Clonmeen Lodge

When the Grehans first moved to their property in Co. Cork they lived in a small Georgian house now known today as Clonmeen Lodge.

Clonmeen House
Clonmeen House

In 1893, Stephen Grehan who had married a fellow member of the Ascendancy, Esther Chichester in 1883, built the present day Clonmeen House. Large tracts of land were sold off by Stephen Grehan through the auspices of the Land Commission throughout the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, but Clonmeen remained a working farm until the death of Major Stephen Grehan in 1972, after which the property was sold.”

Daniel O'Connell
Daniel O’Connell

To provide the family context; Stephen Grehan Senior is Celia O’Bryen’s first cousin, once-removed on the Grehan side. He is also a second cousin on his mother’s side of Charles O’Connell, who was the MP for Kerry from 1832-1835, and married Catherine(Kate) the second daughter of Daniel O’Connell in 1832. Stephen is also a second cousin on his mother’s side of Garrett Standish Barry,elected to the House of Commons for county Cork in 1832, Garrett was the first Catholic Member of Parliament elected after the Emancipation Act of 1829.

Stephen Grehan Junior and Ernest O’Bryen are third cousins. This is quite a good illustration of how often families intermarried, and how strong their instincts were to keep the money within a tight circle.

It also entertaining that while Peter Grehan’s descendants made the move from trade to land, and it has to be said, kept the estate in the family for more than one hundred and fifty years right up until the 1970’s, it was his younger brother Patrick who married into the Old English and Gaelic aristocracy through his marriage to Judith Moore. Either way, I think it fair to say that the whole family is not “Ascendency” as described above, but are better described as prosperous, landed, upper-middle Catholic Irish.

This is the entry for a branch of the Grehan family from Burke’s Landed Gentry published in 1912.

STEPHEN GREHAN, of Clonmeen, co. Cork, J.P. and D.L., High Sheriff 1883, born. 1858 ; married. 1883, Esther, daughter of Col. Charles Raleigh Chichester, of Runnamoat.co. Roscommon (see CHICHESTER- CONSTABLE of Burton-Constable, Yorks.). She died 11 April, 1900, having had issue,

1. George, died an infant, 1892.

2. STEPHEN ARTHUR, b. 1896.

1. Mary.

2. Magda.

3. Kathleen, m. 18 Aug. 1910, Richard, only surviving son of George Edward Ryan, of Inch, co. Tipperary (see that family).

4. Aileen.

Lineage.

THADY GREHAN, of Dublin, died in 1792, leaving, with a daughter, Mary, who married John Roche, three sons,

1. PETER, of whom below.

2. Andrew, who married the daughter of Patrick White.

3. Patrick (Senior), who married  Jane (sic) Moore, of Mount Browne, and had a son,

Patrick (Junior),who married Catherine, daughter of George Mecham, and had,

Patrick (III)who married in 1842, Frances, daughter of John Pitchford, and

left issue.

The eldest son,

PETER GREHAN, married Mary, daughter, of Stephen Roche, of Limerick

(see ROCHE of Granagh Castle), and had issue, two sons and five daughters.,

1. Thady.

2. STEPHEN, of whom next.

1. Margaret, who married  John Joyce.

2. Anne, who married in January 1800, Thomas Segrave, of Dublin, who died in 1817, having had issue (see SEGRAVE of Cabra).

3. Mary, who married in 1804, Hubert Thomas Dolphin, of Turoe, co. Galway, and had issue (see that family) . He died 1829.

4. Helen, who married Alexander Sherlock.

5. Lucy, who married Christopher Gallwey.

The 2nd son,

STEPHEN GREHAN, of 19, Rutland Square, Dublin, married in May 1809, Margaret, daughter of George Ryan, of Inch, co. Tipperary (see that family), and had issue, a son,

GEORGE GREHAN, of Clonmeen, Banteer, co. Cork, High Sheriff 1859, born 1811, married 1855, Mary, daughter of Philip O’Reilly, of Colamber, co. Westmeath (see that family). She died in 1859. He died in 1886, leaving issue, an only child,

STEPHEN, now of Clonmeen.

Seat Clonmeen, Banteer, co. Cork.

Clubs Windham and Kildare Street.

Burke’s Landed Gentry 1912

Charles Joseph Penn 1814 -1884

Newington Workhouse
Newington Workhouse

Charles Joseph Penn (1814 -1884) is the father of Charles Penn Jnr, b.1848, and grandfather of Esther Penn,b.1872. He died in 1884 of “apoplexy”, in Newington Workhouse. He seems to have been admitted to the Workhouse in Westmorland Road on Wednesday 2nd January 1884, some time after lunchtime because his admission record shows the next meal is supper. At that date the workhouse also acted as a hospital, and a number of London hospitals are still in the original Victorian workhouse buildings – Hammersmith springs to mind – beautifully placed next to Wormwood Scrubs prison.

St Mary's NewingtonHe was born in about 1814 in Keston, which was a suburb of Bromley, in Kent, at that time a village on the fringes of London; with his parents recorded as Richard and Susan Penn. He married Ellen Wilmott Miles(1831-1896) on the 13th October,1846 at St Mary’s, Newington. Ellen appears to be about 16, and he appears to be 30. She is explicitly referred to as a minor on the marriage licence.

Ellen’s father, Robert Miles (1798 -1844) had died in 1844, aged forty six. Her mother Jane (nee Corney) died in 1832, about a year after Ellen’s birth. Rob remarried on the 26th Jun 1837 to another Jane – this time to Jane Lowe at St Mary’s, Lambeth. So by the time Ellen was fourteen, both her parents were dead, and her closest relative was probably a step-mother.

Robert Miles also had the distinction of having been transported to Australia in 1818, and then returned to London by 1826, when he married Ellen’s mother in Tottenham. By 1841, he seems to be fairly respectable, and working as a mill-wright.

I’m not entirely sure how I feel about this marriage. The age difference between the two is pretty stark. Charles is close to twice Ellen’s age, and whilst a fourteen year age gap is considerably less extreme than some others, she is a teenage girl, and he is a thirty year old man. But there are any number of possibilities, it could be love, it could be predatory, it could be protective, or it could be practical. At the moment I’m not sure it’s bad, but it’s maybe iffy.

But to put it in context in the story, James Herbert, Esther’s other grandfather is sixteen years older than his wife; and, of course, John Gray, the father of Esther Penn’s son-in-law, is forty years older than his second wife, and twelve years older than Esther, and only two years younger than Charles Penn Senior. Put another way, when Walter Gray, and Ella Hayward marry, her father is thirty years younger than his is (except his is dead).

By 1851, Charles and Ellen are living at 5 Victory Place, in Newington, South London. It’s a fairly rough part of south-east London, off Elephant and Castle, and the New Kent Road. Later on in the century, Charles Booth classified it as poor, and ” tenanted by labourers, and car-men, always shifting”, and noted ” 2 brothels here – windows dirty, blind half down, pinned up, everything dingy and dirty”. So a tough area on the edges of the London docks. Charles and Ellen are bringing up their first two children, Charles Junior, who is three, and one year old Elizabeth

Charles Senior is thirty five and working as a  gardener, a job he continues right up to his death aged seventy. Ellen is twenty, and a mother of two toddlers.

Chas and Ellen live at 5 Victory Place for the best part of twenty years, and have twelve children over twenty five years. When they start Charles is thirty four, and Ellen is eighteen; by the time Harriet, the youngest is born, Ellen is forty three, and Chas is almost sixty.

  • Chas Penn Junior b 1848
  • Elizabeth Penn b1849
  • Joseph Penn b1853
  • Richard Penn b1855
  • Emily Penn b 1857
  • Sarah Penn b 1859 – not certain.
  • Thomas Penn b 1860
  • John Penn b 1862
  • Ellen Penn b. 1862 
  • Mary Ann Penn b.1868
  • William Penn b 1870
  • Harriet L. Penn b 1873

By 1861, they are still at 5 Victory Place, with Charles still working as a gardener. The family has grown to three boys, and three girls ranging in aged from thirteen year old Charles Junior to two year old Sarah. Charles is now forty seven, and Ellen is twenty nine.

Ten years later, in 1871, the eldest two children Charles Junior, and Elizabeth have moved out. In fact, Charles marries some time in the first three months of 1871, shortly after the birth of his first child, Amy, who was born on the 15th December  the previous year. Esther was born about a year later in February 1872.

Charles Senior, and Ellen are still in Newington, in South London. The address is unclear, and, rather improbably, seems to be Little Lane Street. They have had four more children;  John, and Ellen who were born in 1862, followed by Mary Ann in 1868, and then two years later by William in 1870. Eighteen year old Joe is working as a coal and sand seller, and fourteen year old Richard is  an errand boy.

In 1881, the majority of the family have moved out and Charles Senior, and Ellen are living at 9 Eltham Street, Newington, with the three youngest children.  Mary Ann is fourteen, William is eleven, and Harriet the youngest is only eight, fifty nine years younger than her father. Charles senior lives another two and a half years before dying in January  1884.

The Chiefs of Leix from 1016 to 1600 A.D

 

The listing of the Chiefs of Leix is as follows:  (Note:mac  means son of..)

Year:       Chief:
1016       Gahan O’More, (?) lord of Leix, slain.
1017       Cearnach O’More, lord of Leix, slain.
1026       Aimergin mac Kenny mac Cearnach O’More, lord of Leix, slain.
1041       Faelan mac Aimergin O’More, lord of Leix, blinded; died in 1069.
1042       Cucogry O’More, lord of Leix, living.
1063       Lisagh mac Faelan O’More, lord of Leix, slain
1069       Macraith O’More, (?) lord of Leix, slain.
1091       Kenny O’More, lord of Leix, slain.
1097       Aimergin O’More, lord of Leix died.
1098       The son of Gahan O’More, lord of Leix, slain.
1149       Lisagh mac Aimergin mac Faelan O’More, lord of Leix, died.
1153       Neill O’More, lord of Leix, blinded.
1158       Macraith O’More, lord of Leix, living.
1183       Cucogry mac Lisagh O’More, lord of Leix, living.
1196       Donnell O’More, lord of Leix, slain.
[It is a remarkable fact the “The Irish Annals” make no mention of an
O’More, Chief of his name, during the thirteenth century]

1319       Shane mac Donough O’More, (?) lord of Leix, slain.
1342       Lisagh O’More, lord of Leix, slain.
1348       Connell O’More, lord of Leix, slain.
1354       Rory mac Connell O’More, lord of Leix, slain.
1368       Lisagh mac David O’More, (?) lord of Leix, died.
1370       Murtough O’More, (?) lord of Leix, slain.
1394       Donnell O’More, lord of Leix, living.
1398       Melaghlin O’More, lord of Leix, died.
1404       Gillpatrick O’More, lord of Leix, living.
1464       Kedagh O’More, lord of Leix, died.
1467       Donnell O’More, lord of Leix, died.
1477       The son of Owny O’More, (?) lord of Leix, slain.
1493       Connell mac David O’More, lord of Leix, slain.
1493       Neill mac Donnell O’More inaugurated lord of Leix.
1502       Melaghlin mac Owny mac Gillpatrick O’More, lord of Leix, died.
1523       Kedagh mac Lisagh O’More, lord of Leix, died.
1537       Connell mac Melaghlin mac Owny O’More, lord of Leix, died.
1538       Peirce mac Melaghlin mac Owny O’More, lord of Leix, (?) died.
1542       Kedagh roe mac Connell mac Melaghlin O’More, lord of Leix, died.
1545       Rory coach mac Connel mac Melaghlin O’More, lord of Leix, slain.
1548       Gillpatrick mac Connell mac Melaghlin O’More, lord of Leix, died.
1557       Connell og mac Connell mac Melaghlin O’More, lord of Leix, hanged.
1578       Rory og mac Rory coach mac Connell O’More, lord of Leix, slain.
1584       (circa).James mac Kedagh O’More, alias Meaghe, lord of Leix, died.
1600       Owny mac Rory og mac Rory coach O’More, lord of Leix, slain.
1600       Owny mac Shane O’More, appointed lord of Leix.”