O’Bryen – Page 7 – Forgotten Victorians

Catholics and the law of marriage before 1836

January 10, 2017 WillLeave a comment

bordeaux-bridge — Bridge over the River Garonne in Bordeaux

There are a couple of peculiar entries in a family bible that belonged to John Roche O’Bryen, and subsequently his son Alfred, and then grand-son Bob.

“John Roche O’Bryen & Eliza his wife (born Henderson July 27th 1805) married Decr 25/32 Janr th 7th /33 by Protestant Curate at Bordeaux” and also in a second entry on “December 25th 1832 & again (according to the rights of the Protestant Faith) at the British consulate Chapel Bordeaux January 7th 1833.”

This has always been intriguing right from the start. All in all, it’s a bit of a dog’s breakfast. The double ceremony is odd, but, as seen below, for a Catholic marriage to be valid under English law before 1836, it had to be performed by an Anglican clergyman. Canonically, in the eyes of the Church, the first, presumably, Catholic marriage is fine. The second Anglican ceremony would provide the legal certainty of a marriage that would be accepted under both English, and Irish law. Ironically, because there is no evidence of a French civil marriage, neither of the marriages were legal in France

The following from the UK Parliament website sets out the state of English Catholic marriages in 1832- 1833.

Until the middle of the 18th century marriages could take place anywhere provided they were conducted before an ordained clergyman of the Church of England. This encouraged the practice of secret marriages which did not have parental consent and which were often bigamous. It also allowed couples, particularly those of wealthy background, to marry while at least one of the partners was under age. The trade in these irregular marriages had grown enormously in London by the 1740s.

1st_earl_of_hardwicke_1690-1764_by_william_hoare_of_bath — Philip Yorke, 1st Earl of Hardwicke 1690-1764

In 1753, however, the Marriage Act, promoted by the Lord Chancellor, Lord Hardwicke, declared that all marriage ceremonies must be conducted by a minister in a parish church or chapel of the Church of England to be legally binding. No marriage of a person under the age of 21 was valid without the consent of parents or guardians. Clergymen who disobeyed the law were liable for 14 years transportation.Although Jews and Quakers were exempted from the 1753 Act, it required religious non-conformists and Catholics to be married in Anglican churches.

Hardwick’s Marriage Act 1753 (‘The Act’) applied only to England & Wales and came into force in 1754. Scotland and the Channel Islands were exempt from the legislation. Under Hardwick’s Act, banns were made compulsory and licences were only valid for a specific church. Hardwick’s Act also declared that only marriages held at approved places (i.e. Anglican, Jewish or Quaker churches) were legal. This was a big change as previously couples who made a vow before witnesses, who lived together and who had children were recognised by the church and law as being ‘married’. In order to legalise their marriage, some couples married again in an Anglican church, having first married in a non-conformist chapel. Marriage by other denominations, (i.e. Roman Catholic and Non-Conformist) wasn’t legalised until 1836.

This restriction was eventually removed by Parliament in the Marriage Act of 1836 which allowed non-conformists and Catholics to be married in their own places of worship. The Marriage Act 1836 allowed for non-conformists and Catholics to marry in their own place of worship, ie. chapels and Roman Catholic churches.

The provisions introduced in England and Wales empowered the Established Church to register the marriages but marriages in other churches were to be registered by a civil registrar. In Ireland the Roman Catholic Church was concerned that this latter requirement might detract from the religious nature of the marriage ceremony. Consequently, provisions were not introduced by the government there until 1845 to enable the registration of non Catholic marriages and for the appointment of registrars who were also given the power to solemnise marriages by civil contract. Ireland had legalised exclusively Catholic to Catholic marriages in the late C18th, but the penalties for marrying a mixed Catholic/Protestant couple were extreme to put it mildly.

The death penalty and a large fine were still on the Statute Books in 1830. In a House of Commons debate on the 4th May 1830, Daniel O’Connell tried to change things: [HC Deb 04 May 1830 vol 24 cc396-401] It was one of the first things he raised, having taken his seat as the first Catholic M.P. since the passing of the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 which allowed Catholic M.P.s

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.

Marriage Settlement – Henry Hewitt O’Brien and Mary Roche 1807

October 12, 2016 WillLeave a comment

TRANSCRIPTION OF THE MARRIAGE SETTLEMENT OF HENRY HEWITT O’BRIEN AND MARY ROCHE DATED 27^th OCTOBER 1807, no.404481

To the Register appointed by Act of Parliament for Registring Deeds Wills & so forth

Memorial of an Indented Deed of Settlement bearing date the twenty seventh day October one thousand eight hundred and seven, and made between Henry Hewitt O Brien of Broomly in the County of Cork Esquire of the first part John Roche of Aghada in the County of Cork Esquire And Mary Roche Spinster only daughter of the said John Roche of the second part, and John Roche the younger of Aghada aforesaid Esquire and Stephen Laurence O Brien of the City of Cork Esquire Doctor of Physic of the third part and what was made previous to the Marriage of the said Henry Hewit O Brien with the said Mary Roche whereby the said John Roche did agree to give as a portion with his said Daughter Four thousand pounds Stock in the Irish five per Cent Funds, By which said Deed whereof this is a Memorial the said John Roche for the consideration therein mentioned Did grant Assigne Transfer and set over unto the said John Roche the younger and Stephen Laurence O Brien All that the said Four thousand pounds Stock in the Irish five per Cent Funds To hold the same unto the said John Roche the younger and Stephen Laurence O Brien and to the Survivor of them his Executors Admst & Assigns up [sic] Trust, to permit the said Henry Hewit O Brien and his Assigns during his life to take the Interest Money, dividends and produce thereof for his own uses and after his death, to permit the said Mary Roche (in case she shall happen to survive the said Henry Hewit O Brien) and her Assigns during her life to take the Interest Money, dividends or produce thereof for her own use, by way of Jointure from and after the death of the survivor of them the said Henry Hewit O Brien, and Mary Roche, as to the said Sum of four thousand pounds upon Trust for the Issue of such Marriage if any shall be, but in Case there shall be no Issue or in Case there should, and that all such shall dye before any of them shall be entitled to their respective shares of the said Sum, then as to the intire said Sum of four thousand pounds Stock in the Irish five per Cent Funds and all benefit to be had thereby, upon Trust, for the survivor of them the said Henry Hewit O Brien and Mary Roche his intended Wife, his, or her Heirs Exrs Admrs and Assigns and it is by sd Deed expressed that the sd John Roche the younger and Stephen Laurence O Brien shall when thereto required by the sd Henry Hewit O Brien invest the intire of the said Trusts Money, or any part thereof, in the purchase of Lands in Ireland which Lands when so purchased are to remain to the same uses and Trusts as are mentioned and expressed in every aspect as to the Trust Sum of four thousand thousand [sic] pound in the Irish five per Cent Funds To which Deed the said John Roche Henry Hewit O Brien & Mary Roche put their hands and Seals, Witness thereto and this Memorial are John Cotter of the City of Cork Merchant, and John Colburn of sd City Gent.

Note:

Jointure – sole estate limited to wife, to be employed by her after her husband’s death for her life.

Dorothy Bell — mistress of the Big House at Fota

October 2, 2016 WillLeave a comment

Dorothy Bell was the daughter of Arthur Smith-Barry, Lord Barrymore. So she is a second cousin of Pauline Barry (nee Roche)’s granddaughters Nina, and Emily, who are in turn, Mgr Henry, Corinne, Basil, Alfred, Philip, Rex, and Ernest O’Bryen‘s third cousins. Dorothy’s father had owned Fota House, which was inherited by his brother James, and then his nephew Robert. Dorothy Bell bought the estate back from her cousin Robert in 1939, for £ 31,000. Quite how the family managed to hold onto their land, and money given Lord Barrymore’s behaviour to his tenants in the 1880’s is some mystery, as is the following description of life at Fota House in the 1940’s. Essentially, it wouldn’t have been much different at any time in past hundred and fifty years.

The following description of life at Fota House is largely taken from ‘Through the Green Baize Doors: Fota House, Memories of Patricia Butler’ , and various interpretations of it in the Irish Times, and Irish Independent about five years ago. The subtle distinctions between Irish and English staff, – Two weeks holiday for Irish staff, and a month for English staff, separate dining rooms, and an acceptance of the big house having hot and cold running water while there was none in the village, and the “Oh weren’t the gentry lovely” take on things appears to be a perfect example of false consciousness. Over to Patty Butler.

Back in the 1940s, when Dorothy Bell — mistress of the Big House at Fota — arrived home from a day’s hunting, she never did so quietly. She would, recalls former maid Patty Butler, rush through the front door, ringing the bell, and stride through the hall and up the stairs, calling the servants one after the other, “Mary!” “Patty!” “Peggy!”, discarding as she went her picnic basket, jacket, the skirt she wore over her jodhpurs for side-saddle riding, her whip and her hunting hat. As the staff, including the butler, rushed to pick up Dorothy’s belongings, her lady’s maid hurried to run a bath.

Patty was just 23 when she started work as the “in-between maid” at Fota House in 1947, after returning to Cork from England. On the advice of her cousin Peggy, who was working in Fota as the parlour maid, Patty applied for the job.

On the day of the interview, a somewhat awed Patty, who came from the nearby village of separate, was shown into the library by the butler, George Russell. “To me, the inside of Fota House on that day seemed like a palace,” she recalls. “I felt very small but also very excited in the midst of all this grandeur.” She was greeted by the mistress, who was sitting at a desk. The interview was brief. “Patty, have you come to join us?” inquired Dorothy. “The housekeeper will show you your duties. It won’t be all clean work, so you won’t be dressed up as you are now. Mrs Kevin will tell you what to wear.” And with that began a quarter of a century of dedicated service, as Patty became a member of staff in the efficiently run, though sometimes-eccentric, household a few miles outside Cobh. Over the years she was promoted to housemaid, lady’s maid and eventually cook.

fota-staff — The Fota House stafff in c.1920

Before Patty’s arrival, the family — The Honourable Mrs Dorothy Bell, her husband Major William Bertram Bell and their three daughters, Susan, Evelyn and Rosemary — had been looked after by an army of servants. According to the census return for 1911, 73 people were on site at Fota House on Sunday, April 2nd, 1911. None of them were the Smith-Barry family who had lived in Fota House for generations, as records show they were away on holiday at the time. In the 1930s, an estimated 50 men had worked on the grounds of Fota alone, but by the time Butler took up employment in the Big House in 1947, overall staffing levels had fallen to about 13.

“I began working in Fota House in 1947. I worked there for about 25 years. I was initially employed as an in-between maid but later I worked in almost every capacity, as a housemaid, cook and housekeeper. The cook, Mrs Jones, who came to Fota with Mrs Bell from England, left after 45 years so Peggy Butler, my cousin, and I managed the cooking for Dorothy, her husband, Major Bell, other members of the family and visitors.”

“Mrs Bell had a secretary too, Miss Honor Betson. She had an estate agent and clerical staff who lived in the courtyard. Mr Russell, the butler from Yorkshire in England, supervised the household until he died on January25th, 1966. He died in Fota House.”

“There was a lovely homely feeling there. It was a very pretty house and Mrs Bell was very into flowers, so it was always lovely and very pretty,” recalls Patty, now 87.

She was given her own comfortable bedroom in the servants quarters. “I had everything I needed: a bed, a wardrobe, a dressing table with a mirror and an armchair near the fireplace. I remember also a beautiful washstand shaped like a heart with three legs. On top of that, there was a jug and basin with a matching soap dish. “There was also a towel rail with a white bath and hand towel. All the servants’ rooms were similar.”

“There was some distinction between the upper (mostly English and Protestant) servants, and the lower (mostly Irish and Catholic) servants. We dined in separate rooms, the upper servants in the housekeeper’s room and the lower servants in the still room. But we were all the best of friends. There was no rivalry or no animosity.”

“We also enjoyed food and board. The food was fabulous in Fota, of course, as fresh fruit and vegetables were produced there all the year round in the market garden and in the fruit garden and orchard. From the farm in Fota came milk, cheese, butter and cream. Rabbit and pigeon were eaten regularly in those days. The servants ate the same as the Anglo-Irish family, more or less.”

The anecdotes are legion — the way the servants occasionally ‘borrowed’ the Major’s Mercedes to go to Sunday Mass when their van didn’t work. How the housekeeper, a kindly soul with a strong Scottish accent, kept a cupboard in her bedroom especially for the pieces of china she broke while dusting Dorothy’s treasured ornaments. The times the servants were all driven to Cork Opera House by the chauffeur — the Bells had a great affection for the theatre and felt their staff should enjoy it too.

And then there was Dorothy’s eccentric habit of cutting the fruit cake in such a way that nobody could take a slice without her knowledge, and, of course, the parties that took place when the Bells were away, travelling the world.

Local lads from the village were invited up to the Big House by their sisters for a bath and a fry-up — there was no running water in many houses until the 1950s, or even the 1960s, says Patty. However, Fota had its own generator for electricity and water was always supplied from a nearby well. “We’d fry them up rashers and sausages and they’d have the bath and use the beautiful big, soft white towels and they’d think they were in heaven. The boys would love the bath — they were in their 20s and wanted to go into Cobh all poshed up!”

One day, however, Dorothy remarked that she had received an anonymous letter claiming that Patty and Peggy were having “parties” in the house while she was away. As Patty stood there, quaking, Dorothy laughed and told her relieved maid that she had thrown the letter in the fire.

Every morning, Mrs Kevin’s bell rang at 7am. Patty rose, dressed in a blue dress with a big white apron and white cap, and set to her housekeeping duties, which included cleaning the Major’s study and hoovering, dusting and polishing the Housekeeper’s Room before having breakfast at 8am. At 8.45am, Patty would bring her assigned guest — Fota nearly always had guests — morning tea on a tray with dainty green teapots with a gold rim and matching teacups. “I’d wake her in the morning with a breakfast tray and a biscuit, open the shutters, pull back the curtains and tidy the room. If there were any shoes that needed to be polished, I would take them down and they would be polished by a man who came in.”

The bed linen was beautiful. Each linen pillowcase had the Smith Barry crest in the corner and frills around the edges. After ironing, Patty remembers, each frill had to be carefully “goofed” or “goffered” by hand until it was perfectly fluted.

The gentry came down for breakfast — kippers, kedgeree, rashers, sausages and eggs or boiled eggs, served with toast and fresh fruit from the garden — each day at about 9am. “You always knew they were gone down because their bedroom doors would be open. So you’d go up and make the beds and tidy the room and wash out the bathroom — but you had to be back behind the green baize door by 11am.” In the evenings, she wore a black dress with a small apron and a smaller white cap with a black velvet ribbon. Male servants also wore black.

“There was always lots to do,” she recalls. After the morning household tasks came lunch. “I’d be helping in the pantry and at the lunch. There was a long walk from the kitchen to the dining room — it was three or four minutes, but there were no trollies, so everything was carried by hand.” Lunch — which could be anything from roast beef to pigeon pie, rabbit, fish soufflé or cold meat in aspic jelly with vegetables from the garden, water and a selection of wines — could last from 1pm to 2.30pm.

Tea was at 5pm in the Gallery in summer and in the library in winter. “Tea, for which there were cucumber and marmite sand-wiches, scones, tea and a cake, could last until 6.30pm,” she says.

At 7pm, the gentry would go up to their bedrooms to change and have a bath before dinner — a lengthy four or five-course affair, which usually included game from Fota Estate. “Each dinner was served with suitable trimmings. Butter and cream were used in food preparations, so the flavours were always delicious,” she says. The kitchen had meat from the cattle and Fota’s home-produced milk, cheese and butter, as well as veg and fruit from the garden.

“There were always visitors, there was always somebody staying. They had the shooting season, the fishing season, the tennis season, the seaside in summer, the hunting — all the seasons brought different activities. You’d know by the season what was happening.”

Christmas was a particularly memorable time, she recalls. A single large Christmas tree was placed in the Front Hall, decorated with streamers, silver balls and other decorations, and on Christmas morning Dorothy gave each of the staff presents. “I remember I got a white apron,” recalls Patty, who says the mistress also distributed gifts to her tenants.

“On Christmas morning, the family went to the library to exchange presents. They loved gifts such as books and music records, ornaments or exquisite boxes of chocolates.” The chocolates, she says, often lasted for weeks, as the family usually ate only one at a time.

On Christmas Day, the servants had Christmas dinner in the middle of the day in the Servants’ Hall, while the family helped themselves to a cold lunch in the dining room. “This was the only day of the year that they waited upon themselves so that we could enjoy our Christmas dinner,” Patty recalls. That evening, the servants lined up in the Hall to watch the family, in full fancy-dress — these clothes were stored in a special chest in the attic — parade into the dining room.

“We had to bow to them as they passed by. I remember one year in particular when I could scarcely stop myself from laughing. Mrs Kevin, the housekeeper, carried a bell behind her back and as she bowed to each individual, the bell rang out!” After the fancy-dress parade, the family enjoyed a traditional Christmas dinner followed by plum pudding. They later drank to each other’s health from a silver ‘loving cup’, which was passed around. The men played billiards and the women talked and drank coffee in the library until late in the evening.

There were plenty of famous guests at Fota: Lord Dunraven of Adare, Co Limerick, Lord Powerscourt from Wicklow, the Duke and Duchess of Westminster and, according to the Visitors Book of Names, “eight international dendrologists with illegible signatures”.

The Bells enjoyed life, Patty recalls. “They had a lovely life; they were into everything. They went to the Dublin Horse Show and to the summer show in Cork. In his study, the Major had pictures of the bulls and cows with their first-prize rosettes. “They had a very privileged life and they enjoyed it,” she continues. There always seemed to be plenty of money. Mrs Bell had her own money, while the Major was, says Patty, “supposed to be a wizard on the stock exchange. They also had the farm and they owned a lot of houses and property in Cobh and Tipperary”.

In the evenings, Patty recalls, it was her job to go back upstairs, remove bedspreads, turn down beds and prepare hot-water bottles. “Some guests brought their own beautifully covered bottles, otherwise, stone jars were used. Most ladies brought their own pillows covered with satin pillowcases because they believed satin did not crease the face. “They had pink satin nightdress cases covered with lace and tied with ribbons.”

Fota House, Patty remembers, was a home from home. “It was a very happy place. Mrs Bell was excitable and eccentric. She was very athletic and quick. It was a very happy time, all of it. In every household little things will happen to ruffle your feathers but, overall, it was a fabulous place to work, and it was the people who made it.”

“There were lovely people at Fota,” she continues. “They were extraordinary. There were men who were extraordinary craftsmen — there was a blacksmith, for instance and a shepherd and a stone mason. They’d usually have a young apprentice that they would be training up.”

By the 1960s, however, most of the servants had left. “There was only me and Peggy running the house. Pat Shea was the last butler. Little by little, the staff dwindled away: the cook left, the ladies’ maid left.” When George Russell died in 1966 — he had been butler at Fota for 45 years and came with the Bells from England — it was the end of an era, she recalls. “Mr Russell told me he would love to write a book about Fota. He was going to call it, ‘What the Butler Saw’.”

The household slowly began to change. A series of nurses were employed to nurse Major Bell in his declining years until he died. Dorothy moved to the Gardener’s House, which was situated in the orchard at Fota, and lived there until she died a few years after her husband, in 1975.

The estate today comprises 47 hectares of land, including the parkland, gardens and arboretum. In December 2007, the Irish Heritage Trust took over responsibility for Fota House, Arboretum & Gardens.

‘Through the Green Baize Doors: Fota House, Memories of Patricia Butler’ — a revised edition of ‘Treasured Times’ transcribed and arranged by Eileen Cronin

The marriage of the Marquis de Stacpoole 1883

September 28, 2016 WillLeave a comment

This is a almost unique wedding. The happy couple are married by the bridegroom’s father, who is a Catholic priest, and a hereditary papal duke. He is also the father of a legitimate son, and daughter. Mgr. George Stacpoole, was a Papal chamberlain at the same time as Mgr Henry O’Bryen.

abbey-of-st-wandrille — The Abbey of St Wandrille, Rouen, Normandy.

The Rt. Reverend Mgr. George Marie Stanislas Koska de Stacpoole, 3rd Duc de Stacpoole, was born on 1 May 1829. He was the son of Richard Fitzgeorge de Stacpoole, 1st Duc de Stacpoole, and Elizabeth Tulloch. He was ordained in 1875 after the death of his wife, and was later made a Domestic Prelate by Pope Pius IX. He had married Maria Dunn, daughter of Thomas Dunn and Catherine Mary King, on 1 June 1859, He died on 16 March 1896 at age 66.
He was educated at Stonyhurst, and was decorated with the award of the Knight of the Supreme Order of Our Lord Jesus Christ (the highest Papal Order), he was also decorated with the award of the Grand Cross, Equestrian Order of Holy Sepulchre (at that time given by the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem under the protection and authority of the Pope).He became 3rd Marquis de Stacpoole, 3rd Duc de Stacpoole[both papal titles] , and 4th Comte de Stacpoole [a french title] in 1878. He lived at St. Wandrille, Rouen, France.

The marriage of the only son of Monsignor the Duc de Stacpoole, with Miss MacEvoy, only child of Edward MacEvoy, Esq., of Tobertynan, co. Meath, and Mount Hazel, co. Galway, and late M.P. for the former county, took place at the Oratory, Merrion-square Dublin,. on Saturday, 1st December, and was performed by Monsignor de Stacpoole, who afterwards addressed a touching and eloquent discourse to the bridegroom. The bride and bridegroom arrived shortly before eleven, attended by Mr. John Talbot as best man. The bride wore a dress of white satin, the entire front of which was of handsome Brussells lace, the gift of the Duc de Stacpoole, and was attended by six bridesmaids, Miss de Stacpoole (sister of the bridegroom), Lady Mary Nugent, Miss Ffrench and Miss Burke (cousins of the bride), and Miss Cicely de Stacpoole and Miss Dunn (cousins of the bridegroom), who were attired in dresses of cream-coloured satin and embroidery, trimmed with point d’Alencon lace, and cream-coloured bonnets with ostrich feathers. Each bridesmaid wore a gold bracelet with pearl horseshoe, and carried a bouquet of flowers, the gifts of the bridegroom. Master Arthur Burke, cousin of the bride, in page’s costume of black and white, acted as page. After the ceremony, Mr. and Mrs. MacEvoy entertained about ninety guests at dinner at their residence, 59, Merrion-square. Among the guests were : Monsignor de Stacpoole, the Right Rev. Dr. Donnelly (Auxiliary Bishop to the Cardinal), the Earl and Countess of Fingal, Dowager Lady Kilmaine, Lady Bellew, Sir Henry Burke, Hon. Mr. and Mrs. C. Nugent, Lady Mary Burke, Mr. and Mrs. Gradwell, Mr. H. Farnham Burke, Mrs. Athy, Mr. and Mrs. Morrogh, Lady Mary Plunkett, Mr. Granbey Burke, Mr. and Mrs. George Morris, Mr Martyn of Tullyra, Mr. and Mrs. O’Connor Morris, &c., &c. The presents numbered about 250. Besides these gifts from those who were present at the wedding, presents were received from the Dowager Marchioness of Londonderry, Lady Herbert of Lea, Sir Percival and Lady Radcliffe, Hon. Mr. and Mrs. Netterville, Hon. Mr. and Mrs. Bellew, Hon. Nora Gough, Hon. Arthur Browne, Mrs. Dunn, Countess of Westmeath, Lady Mary Nugent, Marquess of Sligo, Earl and Countess of Granard, Mr. and Mrs. George Lane Fox, Sir Henry Grattan Bellew, Sir Bernard Burke, Major Jarvis White, Miss Chichester, Mr. Coppinger, Mr. William Fitzgerald, Mr. Radcliffe, Mr. O’Connor, Mr. Ashworth P. Burke, Sir George and Lady O’Donnell, &c., &c. During the breakfast a telegram was received from Monsignor Mecchi, conveying a special blessing from his Holiness, who had previously deigned to bless the wedding ring, at the request of Cardinal Manning, who had been kind enough to take it to Rome. Shortly before four o’clock the newly married pair departed en route for the continent.

The above text was found on p.15, 8th December 1883 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 .

Pauline and William Barry’s grandchildren

September 24, 2016 WillLeave a comment

Pauline Roche (1835 -1894) has been part of the story for a while. But I’m becoming increasingly sure that she helps place a lot of things into context. This is one of a series of posts covering her marriage into the Barry family, and her daughter’s marriage into the related Smith-Barrys, and a look at where they all fit into both Irish, and British society.

Pauline & William Henry Barry had seven children, five of whom were unmarried, only two of the girls marry. Their children were:

(Patrick) Henry, born 1862; d. poss 1930, who appears to have been unmarried
William Gerard; born 1864; d. 1940 in Saint-Jean-de-Luz, unmarried.
Pauline; prob born 1865 or b.1867 – d. after 1911; unmarried.
Edith,born probably 1866, but possibly as early as 1861, and possibly 1863. Edith and Mary both give their ages as 35 in the 1901 census so it’s likely they are twins.
Mary Barry, b. 1866, married Cecil Smith Barry, (b. 19 Oct 1863, d. 21 Nov 1908) so Cecil was Pauline Roche’s son-in-law.
Henrietta (Rose) , b. 1873/4,unmarried
Kate. b 1879 unmarried.

Edith marries twice, and has three sons with her first husband; William, and Joseph b. 1891 who are twins, and then Gerard b. 1893, a year later,, and a daughter, Janet b. 1905, with her second.

Mary married Cecil Smith Barry, and had two daughters Cecily Nina b 1896, and Edith b 1907

So the grandchildren are:

William Hayes 1891 – 1918, aged 27
J B (Joseph Barry )Hayes 1891-1927, aged 36
Gerard Patrick Hayes 1892 – 19??
Cecily Nina Smith-Barry b 1896
Janet Babtie b 1905;
Edith Smith-Barry b 1907

Edith married Patrick Aloysius Hayes (1847-1900) who was born in Dingle, Co Kerry in 1847, and was a surgeon-major H. M. Army Medical Department, and they had three sons; William Hayes 1891 – 1918, J B (Joseph Barry )Haynes 1891 – 1927, and Gerard Patrick Hayes. Will and Joe appear to be twins, according to the 1901 census, both aged 9, Gerry is a year younger at 8, so probably born in 1892. Patrick Hayes Senior died in Wimbledon on the 20th March 1900. Edith then married Lieutenant General William Babtie V.C (1859 -1920), as a widow in 1903, and had a daughter Janet born in 1905.

Edith died on 25th June 1936 at 18 St Patrick’s Place, Cork and her address was given as The Hermitage, Rushbrooke, Cork; probate was given to Gerard Patrick Hayes, who described himself as an advertising salesman.

Mary and Cecil Smith-Barry had two daughters, Cecily Nina b 1896, and Edith b 1907. Cecily died in Bournemouth in the winter of 1954, “aged 56” actually 58. By that point she was firmly calling herself Nina Cecily. She was entered on the General Register of Nurses on Feb 16 1923, and still on the register in 1940, where her address was given as 9 Walkers Row, Fermoy, co. Cork. 1937 her address was Ruddiford, Wimborne Road, Red Hill, Bournemouth. She got her nursing certificate between 1917-1920 at St George’s in London. By 1943 she was at 3 Bodorgan Road, Bournemouth. There is very little trace of Edith Smith-Barry to date.

All three of Edith’s sons served in the First War, both Will and Joe in the Queen’s (Royal West Surrey) Regiment, and Gerard in the Royal Fusiliers.

Will was awarded a D.S.O. (Distinguished Service Order), and Joe a M.C. (Military Cross). The D.S.O. is awarded for an act of meritorious or distinguished service in wartime and usually when under fire or in the presence of the enemy. The Military Cross is a decoration for gallantry during active operations in the presence of the enemy. The decorations rank two, and three, respectively, in the order of precedence behind the Victoria Cross, which, incidentally, was awarded to their step-father Lieut.-General Sir William Babtie during the Boer War.

William Hayes died of flu on the 20th October, 1918, in Italy, and is buried at Staglieno Cemetery, Genoa. He had served throughout the First War, having been part of the original Expeditionary Force in 1914; out of the 1,000 men of 1^st Battalion The Queen’s Royal Regiment who landed in France in 1914, only 17 were alive at the Armistice. So Will almost made it.

Gerard was wounded in 1916, when he was also mentioned in dispatches by Sir Douglas Haig, and Joe was awarded the Military Cross the same year. Will was mentioned in dispatches, and awarded the D.S.O. in 1917.

Joe survived the war, but died on December the 19th, 1927, aged 35. He had married in the winter of 1920, and his widow Gwen [nee Harold] survived him, and died almost fifty years later in 1976. Their address was given as the Very House, Worplesdon, Surrey, when Gerard Patrick was granted probate. Joe left £ 226. 13s. 11d., a present day equivalent of about £ 66,000.

Pauline Barry died in the autumn of 1894, aged 56. The registration district was Midletown, in co. Cork, so we can safely assume that she died at home in Ballyadam. All three of her grandsons had been born before she died, but none of her granddaughters.

Patrick Hayes died at Wimbledon on the 20th March 1900, presumably at 132 Worple Road Wimbledon where the boys were living at the time of the census in 1901. The house itself appears to be a relatively small two storey late Victorian semi-detached house. The greatest curiosity is that, at the time of the 1901 census, all three boys were living there without their mother, and only three servants looking after them. Elizabeth O’Shea aged 30, described as a nurse domestic on the census, but presumably their nanny; and Mary Phillips, a 21 year-old house maid, and Violet Gatling, also 21, who was the cook. The census was taken ten days before Will, and Joe’s tenth birthday on the 11th of April.

The censuses in 1901 in both Ireland, and England were taken on the same day 31st March, though the forms in Midleton in Ireland were not filled in until the 12th April 1901. They show that Edith Hayes was in Ireland staying with the Coppinger family at Midleton Lodge, rather than with her brother and sisters at Ballyadam House, nearby. There could be any number of reasons for this, Pauline, and Rose Barry are both living at Ballyadam with only one servant, in a sixteen room house outside of town, whereas the Coppingers are in the middle of Midleton in a rather larger house, with four daughters aged between eleven and twenty-one, a governess, and seven servants. Quite simply, it may well be that life at Midleton Lodge was a bit livelier, and as the widowed mother of three youngish sons Edith was looking for a rest, and some adult company. In all likelyhood, the Coppingers were also likely to be cousins of some sort.

Both families, the Barrys, and the Coppingers were living in considerable comfort, compared to the majority of the population of Ireland at the time. The Coppinger house appeared to have 22 rooms, and 20 outbuildings including 6 stables, a coach house, harness room, three cow houses, a calf house, dairy, piggery, fowl house, boiling house, barn, and a workshop, shed, and store. The house had “16 windows at the front” , in fact from the look of it, five windows at the front in a good solid double fronted Georgian house that is now the local council offices. Just to give some idea of how mobile all the families were Thomas Stephen Coppinger says in the 1901 census that he was a 57 year old merchant, born in Lucca, Italy in 1842.

Ballyadam, by contrast, was marginally smaller with 16 rooms, and 9 stables, a coach house, a harness room, 2 cow houses, a calf house, 2 piggeries, a fowl house, boiling house, barn, potato house, and 2 sheds. The Barrys were also listed as the owners of two 2-room cottages, each with 2 outbuildings next door to Ballyadam House.

The family living in the smallest house, though still more than comfortably, were Cecil, and Mary Smith-Barry. In 1901 they were in Castlemartyr, co. Cork, in the second largest house in the village, with 10 rooms, “eight windows at the front” , two stables, and a coach house. It was a mixed marriage, with Cecil a member of the Church of Ireland, and Mary and the children Roman Catholic. They only had one servant with them though, twenty-three year old Julia Casey.

At the time, 1901, Worple Road was just round the corner from the All England Tennis and Croquet Club, until it moved to Church Road in 1922. The site became the sports ground for Wimbledon High School for Girls.

By 1911, Will had been gazetted into the Army, Gerry was at Beaumont College, in Windsor, and Joe was an “army student” boarding at Edge Hill Catholic College in Wimbledon. Edge Hill became Wimbledon College, and it was a third of a mile, or about five minutes walk from 132 Worple Road. Amongst Joe’s fellow students were Charles Joseph Weld, Thomas Joseph Weld, and Cecil Chichester-Constable, whose aunt Esther had married Stephen Grehan Junior in 1883, and was the mother of Major Stevie Grehan, (1896 -1972) whose memoirs of the First War are held, and documented in the Grehan papers at University College, Cork.

So, slightly curiously, both Joe Hayes, and Cecil Chichester-Constable were both related to the O’Bryen’s at Ernest O’Bryen’s generation. Joe, Will, and Gerry’s mother was his second cousin, and Cecil’s uncle, Stephen Grehan Junior, was also his second cousin. It’s all a very small world.

It is not entirely clear as to where all the Hayes boys went to school. Both Will and Gerry went to Beaumont, in Windsor, with Will going on to Sandhurst, before receiving his commission in 1911. Joe was just short of twenty years old when he was described as an “army student” at Edge Hill, so old to still be at school. He may well have been at Beaumont as well. It would be slightly odd to send two out of three boys to one school, and one to another.

Beaumont was certainly grand, being where it was on the edge of Windsor Great Park, it rapidly developed a claim to being the “Catholic Eton”, a tag at the school was “Beaumont is what Eton was: a school for the sons of Catholic gentlemen”, though similar claims have been made for Stonyhurst , Ampleforth, and the Oratory. Beaumont was one of three public schools maintained by the English Province of the Jesuits, the others being Stonyhurst, and St Aloysius’ College, Glasgow. To be fair to all of them, Stonyhurst has much the greatest claim, having been founded in 1593 at St Omer, in France to educate the sons of Catholics, who couldn’t get a Catholic education in Elizabethan England. None of the other three were founded until the C19th.

The family were still all very close, and in the 1911 census all the unmarried Barry siblings were at Ballyadam House, along with Edith’s eight year old daughter, Janet Babtie, who was the youngest of Pauline and William’s grandchildren. They had a couple of servant girls, and amusingly, Pauline claimed to be two years younger than she was ten years before, and Rose was a year younger.

Meanwhile Mary Smith-Barry had moved to a smaller house about ten miles away at Ballynoe, on the outskirts of Cobh. She is forty-five years old, and has been a widow for three years. The house is rented from her late husband’s cousin Lord Barrymore, who seems to own most of the village. Mary seems to be living quietly in the village with her daughters (Cecily) Nina who is now fifteen, and four year old Edith, and a nineteen year old servant girl.

To put things in perspective, when Cecil died in 1908, he left just over £ 5,000 [ the best current-day equivalent is £ 3.2m]. In the same year, The Old Age Pensions Act 1908 introduced a non-contributory pension for ‘eligible’ people aged 70 and over. The pension was 5 shillings a week, about half a labourer’s weekly wage, or £ 13 p.a. Cecil’s £ 5000 was the equivalent of three hundred and eighty four years of old age pension, so Mary, and the children, were hardly paupers.

A snapshot of Rome in 1879

September 16, 2016 WillLeave a comment

This give a nice picture of what was happening in Rome in February 1879. It is nine and a half years after the capture of Rome and the culmination of the Risorgimento. February 7th 1879 was the first anniversary of the death of Pope Pius IX, and thirteen months since the death of Vittorio Emanuele II on January 9th 1878. The Rev. Dr. Henry O’Bryen had been in Rome for about six years, and appears to be curiously absent from things. But the following cutting explains his absence: “REV. DR. O’BRYEN.—The Rev. Dr. Henry O’Bryen has left Rome for Nice for change of air after his recent serious indisposition. The Tablet Page 17, 15th March 1879″

Anyway back to Rome, on February 8th, 1879.

THE VATICAN.

The Feast of the Purification of Our Lady,

consistory — *The Consistorial Hall, Vatican*

On Sunday the 2nd, LEO XIII., received the customary offerings of wax candles front the basilicas and the various religious orders. The ceremony was attended by many prelates and parochial clergymen, Knights of Malta, Chamberlains, &c., &c. In the evening his Holiness received in private audience Monsignor Ramadie, Archbishop of Albi in France, who presented a large offering of Peter’s Pence. On Monday, February 3rd, the Consistorial Hall was filled with an immense number of ladies and gentlemen. The Holy Father made his appearance in the Hall shortly after 11 o’clock, attended by Monsignor Macchi, Maestro di Camera, and by Monsignor Boccali and Monsignor Ciccolini, the Chamberlains Partecipanti in Waiting.

Among the foreign ladies received were the Countess Elizabeth de Perchestine, the Countesses Marie Louise de Biesme, Maria Collino Mariani, and Emilia Desberger. Monsignor Kirby presented the Holy Father with the sum of £200 sterling, an offering from Patrick Power, Esq., of Halifax, U.S.

Lord George Paget, who was introduced by Monsignor Stonor, had audience of his Holiness. On the 5th of February private audience was given to the Rev. Luigi Della Valle, Director of the Pontifical Press of the Immaculate Conception at Modena, and to the Rev. Gaspare Olmi, Missionary Apostolic, who presented to the Pope several religious periodicals printed by their establishment, and also an offering of Peter’s Pence from the Direito Cattolico of Modena.

PRINCE PAUL BORGHESE AND THE QUIRINAL.

The Queen visited last week the San Spirito Hospital, of which Prince Paul Borghese, Prince of Sulmona, is Deputato Administratore, or acting manager. In this capacity the Prince accompanied Queen Margarita in her visit to the several wards. Her Majesty always addressed him as “Signor Deputato,” and never as Prince Paul Borghese. She gave a donation to the hospital funds, and the Prince sent a servant of the hospital to the Quirinal to write in the visitor’s book an entry, stating that the Deputato Administratore of the Hospital thanked her Majesty the Queen for the honour conferred on the hospital by her visit. The Prince himself has never been to the Quirinal since 1870.

REQUIEM FOR PIUS IX

A Requiem Mass for the repose of the soul of Pius IX. was sung in the Sistine Chapel on the 7th. No tickets of admission were given but invitations to attend were sent to the Ambassadors and Ministers accredited to the Holy See, and to the Roman nobility, and to a few distinguished strangers. The royal tribune was unoccupied. The diplomatic benches and the seats reserved for the wives and daughters of Ambassadors and for the Roman ladies were filled. The members of the Pope’s household were all present, as well as numbers of Archbishops, Bishops and prelates and heads of Religious Orders. Six Camerieri Segreti di Spada e Cappa were on duty, dressed in their court costume. Many other camerieri were present and wore their chains of office and decorations. Among these were Commendatore Winchester, Count de Raymond, Mr. Hartwell Grissell, Mr. Ogilvy Fairlie, Mr. John Grainger, &c., &c.

All the Cardinals resident in Rome attended,except one or two, such as Guidi and Simeoni, who were indisposed. The Dean of the Sacred College sang the Mass. The Pope assisted and gave the absolutions. The catafalque was very small and was covered by a plain pall of gold cloth without any chandeliers or standards for tapers around it. Leo XIII. entered the chapel about 11 a.m. and took his seat on the throne, having on his right hand a Cardinal Deacon and Prince Orsini, Prince Assistant, and on the other hand a Cardinal deacon and the Prefect of Pontifical Masters of Ceremonies. The Mass was by Palestrina. The Dies Ire was by Mustafa. [Domenico Mustafà, the Direttore Perpetuo of the Sistine Choir was a soprano castrato].

DON279045 Cardinal Edward Howard (oil on canvas); by English School, (19th century); 143.5x105.4 cm; His Grace The Duke of Norfolk, Arundel Castle; English, out of copyright — Cardinal Edward Howard

The absolutions were by Casciolini. Among the English and Irish ecclesiastics present were Cardinal Howard, the Hon. Dr. Clifford, Bishop of Clifton, and Bishop assistant at the throne ; Bishop O’Mahony, the Hon. and Right Rev. Mgr. Stonor, the Right Rev. Tobias Kirby, Rector of the Irish College ; and Monsignor de Stacpoole. Among the favoured occupants of the seats reserved for strangers were Lady Eyre and Mr. and Mrs. Scully. The Pope seemed in excellent health, and his clear, ringing voice was heard with distinctness in every part of the Sistine.

THE MASS AT ST PETER’S.

On Saturday, the 8th, the Requiem was sung for Pius IX. in the great Basilica of St. Peter’s. The police and soldiers in the Piazza were numerous, and order was well preserved. From 9 a.m. a constant stream of carriages poured over the bridge of St. Angelo, and by half-past ten a.m. the vast Basilica was three parts full. The crowd of worshippers kept surging and shifting, and I fancy some fifty thousand persons must have at one time been within the sacred edifice. A beautiful catafalque was erected between the confessional and the altar of the chair. The catafalque was simple and at the same time majestic, and consisted of an oblong structure built in four stages, gradually diminishing in pyramidal form. At the summit was a large triple crown in silver and gold. At each angle were five bronze candelabra in the form of fruit bearing palms, and containing a vast quantity of lights. On each stage of the catafalque were numbers of candles artistically arranged. The hangings were of black and cloth of gold.

This catafalque presented a strong contrast to that which was erected in Sta. Maria degli Angeli for Victor Emmanuel’s requiem, and which was perhaps the most pagan in idea ever erected for a Christian funeral. The style chosen for the late King’s catafalque was Doric, the superstructure being raised on four imitation-granite columns, and having at the angles severely classical tripod lamps burning green flames (a custom borrowed from France, and never introduced into Rome until 1878 by the Italians). On the first stage of this heathenish catafalque was a piece of sculpture in white marble representing the wolf dead, and Romulus and Remus weeping. A meagre cross at the summit was the only Christian symbol.

In comparing the two funerals there was also a marked difference in the behaviour of the visitors. The State funerals of the late King were attended by well dressed persons, who took their place as in a theatre, talked with their neighbours and neither knelt nor said their prayers. The vast majority of those who on Saturday went to St. Peter’s went to pray for the repose of the soul of Pius IX. Rude persons there were, chiefly Protestants, who forced their way hither and thither, stared about, and consulted their Murray or Baedeker. But in spite of these tourists and idlers the devotion of the great multitude was fervent, and many eyes were moist with tears as the strains of the Requiem aternam, the Dies ire, and the Libera echoed through the nave. Cardinal Borromeo, Archpriest of the Basilica, sang the Mass, and hundreds of Bishops sat on benches at either side of the choir. There were no palchi and but few seats reserved for great personages other than those accommodated in the four tribunes round the confessional. But many nobles and church dignitaries stood unnoticed among the crowd, and many gentle ladies endured the fatigue of some two hours’ duration, in order to pay respect to the memory of the saintly Pontiff.

ST. AGATHA’S DAY AT THE IRISH COLLEGE.

santagata_dei_goti_rome_-_interior — Sant Agata dei Goti, Roma

On Wednesday, the 5th of February, the Feast of St. Agatha, V. M., High Mass was celebrated in the Church of St. Agatha, the Church of the Irish College, with much solemnity. The Mass was sung by Monsignor de Stacpoole, in presence of his Eminence Cardinal. de Falloux, titular Cardinal of the Church. The Deacon and Sub-deacon were the Rev. Messrs. Hassan and McCarthy, and Mgr. Cataldi, Master of Pontifical Ceremonies, officiated as the Master of Ceremonies. The church was remarkably warm and was beautifully decorated. The esteemed Rector, Monsignor Kirby, Domestic Prelate to Leo XIII. ; Bishop O’Mahony, Mgr. Rinaldini, Archbishop Elect of Cyrene in fiartibus ; and the Very Rev. John Egan, the Vice-Rector, occupied seats in the choir. After Mass the Rector entertained at dinner his Eminence Cardinal Nina, Secretary of State ; his Eminence Cardinal de Falloux, the Hon. and Right Rev. Dr. Clifford, Bishop of Clifton ; Right Rev. Bishop O’Mahony, Monsignor Agnozzi, Secretary to the Propaganda ; Monsignor de Stacpoole, Monsignor Cataldi, Very Rev. Dr. O’Callaghan, Rector of the English College ; Monsignor Hostlot, Rector of the American College ; Very Rev. Dr. Campbell, Rector of Scots’ College ; Very Rev. Dean Quinn, the Prior of St. Clement’s, the Guardian of St. Isidore’s, the Prior of Sta. Maria in Posterula, Monsignor Rinaldini, the Marquis de Stacpoole, Mr. Scott, Mr. Mahony, the Vice-Rector of Propaganda, Dr. Ryan, Signor Fausti, Father Keogh, Rev. Dr. Stonor, Father Hayes, &c., &c.

THE DEBTS OF THE ROMAN MUNICIPALITY.

Before the invasion of Rome by the Italians on the 20th of September [1870,nine years before this was written], the city of Rome was prosperous and rich. The people fared well. Artisans artists, and traders, had good employment and made considerable gains. The poor were able to live and received help from the ample charity of the benevolent. Gold and silver coins were in daily currency. Numbers of wealthy foreigners resided in Rome and spent quantities of money. Taxes were light. The duties paid on articles of food were not oppressive. The rents of houses were low. There was no usury, nor any sign of famine, nor any extraordinary resort to the pawn office. Suicide was unknown. Rome was a fortunate city where people lived cheaply and happily.

But since 1870 Rome, as a city for resort of strangers, has completely changed. The prices of food, apartments, and of all articles necessary for comfort and luxury have advanced enormously. Fiscal exactions, duties and taxes, caused an extravagant increase in the rents of houses and lodgings, and in the cost of wine, meat, and vegetables. The wealthy Catholic and Protestant families of all nationalities ceased to reside in Rome, because the attractions of the former Roman society no longer existed. The Court of Victor Emmanuel had no charms for Catholics. The magnificent church ceremonies were suspended. The Roman princes closed their doors and either retired to their country seats or lived in their palaces in sadness, avoiding all amusements and giving no entertainments. Rome was filled with poor Italians, mostly clerks and officials unable, upon their beggarly stipends, to do more than support their families in a miserable way. The Government proceeded to impoverish the clergy and ruin the religious orders. Convents and church lands were sold, and taxes were multiplied and increased. Buildings of all kinds were erected and new streets were planned. The cost of this outlay fell on the citizens, and the municipal taxes became exorbitant. The pawn offices were filled with pledges. Suicides were of almost daily occurrence. Crimes of violence were multiplied, and the municipality, which before 1870 did not owe a shilling and had a large balance to its credit, was sunk in debt to the amount of 57 millions of francs.

Unfinished squares and streets now occupy the sites of once flourishing vineyards and gardens. Millions of francs were expended in doubtful improvements, and the Government still urges the authorities to squander further sums in useless fortifications and in street alterations which might well be let alone. Rome is about to become a bankrupt city like Florence. The report on the economical condition of Rome, lately published by the municipal committee, shows plainly the pitiable condition to which the finances of the capital of Italy have been brought under the guidance of the new rulers. That report was signed by three municipal councillors, of whom one, a tradesman, is a Roman, the other two being Italians who knew nothing of Rome before the breach of Porta Pia.

The Government is now forced to come to the aid of the beggared Corporation and to grant a pecuniary subsidy to enable the municipality to pay its way and to undertake further schemes in hope of making Rome a city worthy to contain the King and the Parliament. These schemes will fail. Rome has indeed obtained an immense increase of population since 1870 but consisting of a class of persons who are no advantage to it. The scum of Italy has flowed into the Tiber.

Freethinkers, blasphemers, and,infidels crowd the streets of the capital of Christianity. Adventurers and speculators prey upon the foolish. But the rich and the respectable shun the city wherein drunkenness, impiety, fraud and violence seem to have settled. The beautiful ceremonies of the Feast of the Purification in St. Peter’s were witnessed by extremely few of the many foreigners now in Rome, for the morning was rainy, and a very small amount of atmospheric discomfort is sufficient to check their zeal in sight seeing. There were, however, a considerable number of poor peasants from the Campagna, and many in very picturesque costumes. It is the custom on this Feast to present immense wax candles to the Holy Father—each of the great Basilicas send one, the Heads of the Religious Orders, &c., &c. When the candle comes from a church dedicated to a martyr, the ” fiocco ” or silk tassel which tops it is red with gold threads, in other cases of various colours. These candles are richly decorated with painted designs, inscriptions, &c., and are of great size.

The 3rd of February is dedicated to S. Biagio (or St. Blaize). On this day, in most of the churches, a priest is seen sitting ready to anoint the throats of all who present themselves, with oil from the lamps that burn before the relics of the Saint, as he is the Saint whose intercessions prevent, or cure, throat maladies ; the anointing with oil from the lamp burning before a Saint is a practice that dates from the first ages of the Church.

ARMENIAN MASS AT S. BIAGIO.

s-_biagio_degli_armeni — San Biagio degli Armeni

In the Church of St. Biagio, in the Via Giulia, a High Mass was celebrated according to the gorgeous ritual of the Armenians, who have a college adjoining. The rite was most imposing. There were six deacons and as many subdeacons, clad in ample red silk dalmatics, having much cloth of gold about them, and either silver or gold stoles crossing their left shoulders ; and two acolytes in similar garments, but with adornments of black and gold. These two acolytes carried the staves, on which are many little bells to announce the more solemn portion of the Mass. These and others, in all some twenty persons, in rich vestments, surrounded the venerable Bishop, who himself made a most imposing appearance, in his magnificent cope of Oriental cloth of gold, and his silver stole and jewelled mitre. Twice during the Mass curtains of white silk, with a pattern of flowers, were drawn across the sanctuary, veiling for the few most solemn moments the altar and its ministers, first at the Consecration, then again at the Communion. Twice also those who bore the bells passed round the altar ringing them. Much fragrant incense was burnt, and the Bishop blessed the faithful, not as in the Roman rite with his hand, but with his pectoral cross, which probably contained a fragment of the true Cross. The students accompanied the intoned prayers with a peculiar low chant, which was very harmonious, like an organ heard afar off. All the service told of an Oriental people to whom the many symbolical movements speak more eloquently than words. The church is an unpretending one, and is greatly in want of repair. There were no foreigners present, but the poor of the neighbourhood crowded in to witness the unaccustomed sight, and their respectful and devout demeanour was worthy of all praise. The Via Giulia was once the Corso of Rome ; the races were run from the Ponte Sisto to S. Giovanni dei Fiorentini ; it is now a comparatively deserted street.

THE CENTO PRETIS.

The ancient hospice for aged priests, by the Ponte Sisto, called the Cento Preti because one hundred aged priests formed an asylum there, is half pulled down, and the handsome church has entirely disappeared to make an approach to the public garden, which is to be made out of land reclaimed from the river, when the embanking walls shall have been completed.

PETER’ S PENCE

On Sunday, the 2nd inst., Peter’s Pence were collected at the doors of all the churches in Rome ; the result is said to have been 40,000 francs, or £ 600. Many who saw the collector standing with his bag, but saying nothing, were ignorant for what object the collection was being made ; it is probable that if more pains had been taken to let people know it was the Peter’s Pence collection many would have given who on last Sunday passed by without doing so. The returns from the churches in Italy have not yet arrived.

MONSIGNOR BOCCALI.—Monsignor Gabriele Boccali’ one of the four Camerieri Segreti Partecipanti to his Holiness, has been appointed a Canon of St. Peter’s.

A CENTENARIAN. —This week there died at the village of Skewsby, near Mahon, Yorkshire, a woman named Elizabeth Potter at the advanced age of 105 years. The deceased had gained a livelihood by taking out coals in a cart, and this laborious occupation she kept up until a short time before her death. She is reputed to have been always very hale, hearty and active.

A DWARF SOLDIER.—The smallest conscript in France is a young man named Chapeland, just drawn in the department of the Ain. He is little more than a metre (three feet three inches) in height, the stature of a boy seven or eight years of age. He drew one of the highest numbers in the canton, but otherwise would have been exempted from active service.

The above text was found onPage 17, 15th February 1879, 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 .

William Barry and Pauline Roche’s children

August 28, 2016 WillLeave a comment

Pauline Roche (1835 -1894) has been part of the story for a while. But I’m becoming increasingly sure that she helps place a lot of things into context. This is one of a series of posts covering her marriage into the Barry family, and a look at where they fit into both Irish, and British society. I think it’s useful to list her children fairly plainly so I can link off it as I delve deeper.

William Henry Barry of Ballyadam, is William Barry, of Rockville’s grandson, and the husband of Pauline Roche. 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. So Pauline Roche’s children are EAOB’s second cousins on their maternal grandmother’s side, and third cousins on their maternal grandfather’s side

Lineage:

William Barry, of Rockville, Carrigtwohill, gentleman, fifth son of Edmond fitzGarrett Barry, of Dundullerick and Rockville, gentleman, according to his son, John, was born 1757, and died the 24th of January, 1824, aged sixty-seven years. He was married and had issue at the date of his father’s will, 30th March, 1783. His wife was Margaret, eldest daughter of James Barry, of Desert, in the barony of Barrymore, and county of Cork, gentleman, whose will is dated 21st November, 1793, but who died the 19th of November, 1793, aged sixty-five years, according to the inscription on his tomb at Ardnagehy. Said James Barry and his brother, Robert Barry, of Glenville, are mentioned in the will of Thomas Barry, of Tignageragh, gentleman, dated 16th November, 1778, and were his first and second cousins, and were great-grandsons of Edmund Barry, of Tignegeragh, gentleman, whose will is dated 22nd April, 1675, and whose father was Richard Barry, of Kilshannig, gentleman, son of John fitzRedmond Barry, of Rathcormac, Esq., and whose wife was a daughter of Thomas Sarsfield, of Sarsfield’s Court, an alderman of Cork, and a prominent Confederate Catholic in 1641. By his marriage with Margaret, eldest daughter of James Barry, of Desert, William Barry, of Rockville, had issue—eleven sons, and three daughters.

The ninth son was Patrick Barry.

The next extract comes from “Barrymore Records of the Barrys of County Cork from the Earliest to the Present Time, With Pedigrees. London:” published 1902

Patrick Barry, of Cork, gentleman, died 1861, having married Mary Anne, daughter of Stephen Murphy, of the city of Cork, draper, and had with an elder son, Stephen Barry, of H. M. Customs, Cork, and a daughter, Kate, who both died unmarried, a younger son, William Henry Barry, of Ballyadam, gentleman, J.P., who was heir to his uncle, Henry Barry, of Ballyadam, and was for many years postmaster of Cork. He married in 1857 Pauline Roche, 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, 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.

Only Edith, and Mary Barry, out of the seven brothers and sisters, marry. Both Edith’s husbands were Army Surgeons. Mary married into the Smith-Barrys of Ballyedmond. 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( Sir Thomas) and Louisa Cusack-Smith, Mary Barry’s husband Cecil’s great-uncle and aunt. It’s a small, small world…

The issue of the marriage of William Henry Barry and Pauline Roche are from “Barrymore Records”:

(Patrick)Henry, born 1862; d. poss 1930, who appears to have been unmarried

William Gerard; born 1864; d. 1940 in Saint-Jean-de-Luz, unmarried.

Pauline; prob born 1865 or b.1867 – d. after 1911; unmarried.

Edith,born probably 1863, but possibly as early as 1861, and possibly as late as 1866. She married Patrick Aloysius Hayes, surgeon-major H. M. Army Medical Department, and had three sons, William Hayes 1891 – 1918, J B (Joseph Barry )Haynes 1891?-1927, and Gerard Patrick Hayes? Will and Joe appear to be twins, according to the 1901 census, both aged 9, Gerard is a year younger at 8, so probably born in 1892. Patrick Hayes Senior died in Wimbledon on the 20th March 1900.

Edith then married Lieutenant General William Babtie V.C, as a widow in 1903, and had a daughter Janet born in 1905; and possibly a son George Patrick (Babtie??)

Mary, married Cecil Smith Barry, second son of Captain Richard Smith Barry, of Ballyedmond, and first cousin of the Hon. Arthur Hugh Smith Barry, P.C. [now Lord Barrymore];

Arthur Hugh Smith Barry was the elder son (and one of two sons and two daughters) of James Hugh Smith-Barry, 1816 -1856, who in turn was the eldest son of John Hugh Smith-Barry 1793 – 1837. Richard Hugh Smith-Barry 1823 -1894 was the youngest son (4 sons, 1 daughter) of John Hugh Smith-Barry 1793 – 1837, which makes him Cecil’s father, and Lord Barrymore’s uncle.

Cecil Arthur Smith-Barry b. 19 Oct 1863, d. 21 Nov 1908 married Mary Barry, so was Pauline Roche’s son-in-law. They had two daughters Cecily Nina b 1896, and Edith b 1907

Henrietta, b. 1873/4,unmarried

Kate. b 1879 unmarried.