Category: Uncategorized

John Smith-Barry (1793-1837)  was the grandfather of both Cecil Smith-Barry ( Pauline Barry[nee Roche]’s son in law, and also Arthur Smith-Barry, Lord Barrymore. In turn, John’s great-grandfather, James Barry, (1667-1748) was the 4th Earl of Barrymore. Pauline Roche (1835 -1894) has been part of the story for a while, she married William Henry Barry in 1857.  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 Roche is Ernest O’Bryen’s first cousin

 John Smith-Barry’s (1793-1837) father, James Hugh Smith Barry (1748-1801) had inherited Belmont Hall, in Cheshire, on the death of his father John Smith Barry in 1784, and lived there until he also inherited the family’s estates in Ireland, and the Marbury estate, also in Cheshire, on the death of his uncle Richard Barry in 1787. James had travelled widely in Europe and the Middle East, as a young man on the Grand Tour, between 1771-6, borrowing large amounts of money and amassing a huge collection of ancient statuary, vases and paintings, mostly by Italian masters. The collection was initially housed in Belmont Hall, until it was sold. James Hugh Smith Barry spent little time at Marbury but clearly intended to make changes to the Hall. In his twenty eight page will of July 1799, eventually found in a trunk at Belmont Hall, he directed his executors to catalogue his collection and remove it to Marbury, providing it with a gallery and custodian. He also willed that all his five children, whose mother was Ann Tanner, be made legitimate and known as Smith Barry. James Hugh Smith Barry died in 1801, two years after making his will, but it wasn’t until 1814 that John Smith-Barry fully inherited the estates.

John Smith Barry (1793-1837) James Hugh Smith Barry’s eldest son,  inherited the family’s estates at Marbury in Cheshire, and in Ireland in 1814. He preferred to live on the family estates in Ireland, in co. Cork, and co. Tipperary, and chose to live at Fota House, co.Cork. Fota House was originally a two-storey hunting lodge set in a large estate near to Barryscourt Castle. When the Barrymore’s family home was at Castlelyons, they used Fota as a base for fishing, shooting and yachting. John Smith Barry commissioned the architect, Sir Richard Morrison to create the current house in the 1820’s and the family made Fota House their main residence.  

John Smith-Barry was born illegitimately in 1793. He was the eldest son of James Hugh Smith-Barry (1748-1801). He married, firstly, Eliza Mary Courtenay, daughter of Robert Courtenay, on 21 April 1814. She died on 16 April 1828. John Smith-Barry’s sister Caroline married Eliza Courtenay’s brother George. John Smith-Barry had a second childless marriage to Mary Felicia Heron in September 1835. He died on 24 February 1837. John, and Eliza had five children.

• James Hugh Smith-Barry b. 27 Jan 1816, d. 31 Dec 1856. (Father of Arthur Hugh SB 1843-1925-Lord Barrymore)
• Anne Smith-Barry b. 14 Mar 1817 d. 8 Dec 1834 unmarried.
• John Smith-Barry b. 25 Sep 1818 d. 9 Apr 1834 unmarried.
• Captain Robert Hugh Smith-Barry b. 13 Jan 1820, d. 25 Apr 1849 unmarried.
• Captain Richard Hugh Smith-Barry b. 21 Feb 1823, d. 23 Jan 1894 (father of Cecil Smith-Barry 1863 -1908)

James Hugh Smith-Barry (1816-1856) inherited both Marbury Hall, and Fota House  on the death of his father in 1837. His mother’s family,the Courtenays,  owned Ballyedmond, in Midleton, co. Cork, which was inherited in turn by Eliza Courtenay’s brothers, George, and then John.  John Courtenay, who appeared to be unmarried, left Ballyedmond to his nephew [and James Hugh’s youngest brother] Richard Smith-Barry in 1861. He, in turn, leaves it to his son Robert Courtenay Smith-Barry [Cecil Smith-Barry’s eldest brother], who, in turn, leaves it to his nephew Guy Forster/Smith-Barry on his death in 1930.

John Smith-Barry’s  sisters all appear to marry well. But they are without doubt part of the Ascendancy.

Narcissa Smith-Barry married Hon. George William Massy, the second son of Hugh Massy, 3rd Baron Massy of Duntrileague on 28 April 1821.She drowned on 9 January 1831.The Massys were a Protestant Ascendancy family who had come to Ireland in 1641 and owned extensive lands in Counties Limerick, Leitrim and Tipperary.They were also Irish politicians, and George’s  grandfather, and great-grandfather had both been M.P.’s for Limerick, and Hugh Massy, George’s  great-grandfather, received his peerage in 1776. George’s great-nephew John Thomas, 6th Baron Massy inherited Killakee House, Killakee, co. Dublin from an aunt in 1880.  

He used the house to entertain visitors while shooting game at Cruagh and Glendoo and to host parties where long lines of guest’s carriages could be seen stretched along the road leading to the house. Lord Massy employed a small army of staff, ranging from coachmen, stablemen, house servants, gardeners, cooks, and gamekeepers. During shooting expeditions, large dining shelters would be set up in the woods, where shooting parties would adjourn for lunch. Tables would be laid out there with the finest tableware, and food would be transported in pony carts from Killakee House. It was during this time that that the family’s riches reached its peak and, ironically, when it started to decline. By the time Lord Massy died in 1915, the estate was hopelessly in debt to the bank.

John Thomas’s grandson, Hugh Hamon Massy, next inherited Killakee. Hamon Massy was faced with a serious crisis, with the magnificent gardens alone requiring a large number of outdoor workers and gardeners. Massy still attended social events and drove around in the last of his grandfather’s motor cars, but by 1919, huge quantities of silver plates, jewellery, furniture, and a large art collection were sold in an auction that lasted several days. It soon became clear to the bank that the family were unable to deal with their financial problems. In May 1924 an officer and two assistants arrived to take possession of Killakee House. Massy, who was unwell, was lifted out of the house on his mattress and deposited on the nearby public road. The incident was widely reported in the national newspapers and the bank soon placed a caretaker in the house. By agreement with the bank, the family was later permitted to take possession of Beehive Cottage, a three-roomed gate lodge located near the gate to Killakee House. For thirty-four years following his eviction he was regularly seen collecting timber for his kitchen fire in the nearby woods. In 1941 the bank, unable to find a buyer, sold the house to a builder who salvaged what was left of Killakee House. Having removed the slates, timbers and floors, the builder demolished the house, in the sight of Hamon Massy who was still living in the nearby gate house. The woods were taken over by the forestry department and Massy was employed in a charcoal making business in the nearby forest.

Caroline Augusta Smith-Barry married George Courtenay  on 29 July 1814. She died on the 28th May 1853. They lived at Ballyedmond, in co. Cork. George  held the office of High Sheriff of County Cork in 1826, the year after his brother-in-law John Smith-Barry.  George Courtenay was the son of Robert Courtenay and Catherine Nash and d. 10 Dec 1837. George Courtenay and Caroline SB have one daughter Caroline Augusta Courtenay who married Mountifort Longfield   in 1840. He sounds like a parody of an appalling landowner.

The Longfields  lived at Castle Mary, co Cork. There are many stories told in the country side that crept into the folklore. Mountiford  is depicted as ill-natured and very selfish. He did not allow any to walk on his land and the story goes that a priest in the area would still always walk this way even in spite of the restrictions the story becomes something like Jack of the beanstalk and the giant. Children were not allowed to pass  through to get to school.The other story is that he rode over a child that was playing in the road with his horse when he was on his way to Ballycotton.He was very hard on his tenants and evicted them if they were unable to pay the rent and destroyed their homes. 35 homes were demolished. In a newspaper article it states that 73 families were evicted that is 378 people. He also received criticism for contributing £5 to the famine relieve fund which he later denied.  Mountiford married Caroline Augusta in 1840 and had 13 children – only one son. Mountiford (1858-1929) educated in Eton and Oxford. He married Alice Elizabeth Mason (1865-1946) in 1891 who had a sizable dowry.(She is often described as being forceful)  In 1920 on Sunday night 19 September the estate was burned. Allegedly by the IRA from the village Ballinacurra. The possible reasons mentioned – Col Longfield did not contribute to the IRA war fund. Or that the estate may be used as military barracks or tit-for-tat burnings. The Longfields were not at home at the time and there was only a small staff present, losses were £50,000.  Apparently the family was devistated as the three girls considered themselves as Irish girls. With his death the male line of Longfields came to an end. After his death much of the estate was sold. Mountiford was very disappointed when his third daughter was also a girl as he wanted a son and heir but she – Cynthia was lively and pretty. Of his three daughters Cynthia Longfield became world renown for her research on dragonfly’s. This bit is from housetorian

George Courtenay left the Ballyedmond estate to his brother John, on his death in 1837, and John left the estate to Richard Smith-Barry, his sister Eliza’s youngest son in 1861. Robert Smith-Barry seems to be living at Ballyedmond, with Sara Louise Johnston, a widow six years older than he is, in both the 1901, and 1911 censuses.

Louisa Smith-Barry married Rt. Hon. Thomas Berry Cusack-Smith, son of Sir William Cusack-Smith, the  2nd Baronet., on 7 September 1819. They had one son, William and five daughters, Hester, Marianne, Anne, Caroline and Frances. He died on 13 August 1866, at their home, 8 Merrion Square, Dublin; now the headquarters of The Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland. She died on 18 April 1872.

In a slightly curious irony, Sir Thomas Berry Cusack-Smith, who, as  the Master of the Rolls in Ireland, heard the appeal on Pauline Roche’s case in 1855, later became Mary Barry’s  great-uncle. His wife Louisa was Mary’s husband Cecil Smith Barry’s great-aunt. Mary Smith-Barry (nee Barry) was one of Pauline and William Barry’s daughters.

Sir Thomas Berry Cusack-Smith PC (1795 – 13 August 1866) was an Irish politician and judge. He was nicknamed “TBC Smith” or “Alphabet Smith”. He was the younger son of Sir William Cusack-Smith, 2nd Baronet, Baron of the Exchequer and his wife Hester Berry, and grandson of Sir Michael Smith, 1st Baronet, Master of the Rolls in Ireland from 1801 to 1806. He was educated at Trinity College, Dublin, entered Lincoln’s Inn in 1817 and was called to the Irish Bar in 1819. He was briefly Member of Parliament for Ripon (1843 -1846). 

Thomas Cusack-Smith followed in his  father’s footsteps as Solicitor-General in Ireland, and his grandfather’s footsteps to become Master of the Rolls in Ireland. Like his father, Thomas was a notable eccentric. He was appointed Solicitor-General for Ireland briefly in 1842, and then Attorney-General for Ireland from 1842 until 1846, in which role he prosecuted Daniel O’Connell at his trial on charges of conspiracy, sedition, and unlawful assembly.

His conduct of the O’Connell trial attracted severe criticism, and the House of Lords later quashed the guilty verdict for gross irregularities. Like his father he had a reputation for eccentricity and bad temper: during the trial of Daniel O’Connell he challenged one of the opposing counsel, Gerald Fitzgibbon, to a duel, for having allegedly accused him of acting from “private and dishonourable motives”. The Lord Chief Justice, Edward Pennefather, suspended the proceedings, in order to afford the parties time for reflection, observing that “the Attorney-General is the last man in his profession who ought to have allowed himself to be betrayed into such an expression of feeling as has been stated to have taken place.” The judges, gravely embarrassed, strongly criticised Cusack-Smith for his actions and persuaded him to drop the matter.

His frequent outbursts of bad temper were often attributed to chronic indigestion. An admirer described him as having “a touch of genius” but admitted he was rough and harsh in manner. Charles Gavan Duffy described him as “dignified” but so unhealthy and ghastly in appearance as to resemble “an owl in daylight”. Daniel O’Connell called him “the vinegar cruet”.

Thomas’s father, William Cusack-Smith had also had his run-ins with Daniel O’Connell. William was an eccentric judge who offended Daniel O’Connell so much, he raised a motion in the House of Commons, carried by MPs on 13 February 1834, to appoint a select committee to enquire into the conduct of Lord Smith in respect of his neglect of duty as a judge, and the introduction of political topics in his charges to grand juries. On the count of neglect, Cusack-Smith had been accused of rarely beginning his court sessions until after noon, occasionally running them until late into the night. The accusation of introducing political topics stemmed from statements made from the bench to grand juries condemning partisan agitation practices that were, that were themselves perceived as inflammatory due to their one-sided nature. The resolution to appoint the committee was rescinded by a majority of six, a week later.

• James Smith-Barry (1798 – 1861) lived at Lota Lodge, died without issue 29th October 1861 aged 63. James Smith, s. James Hugh, of Dublin (city), arm. Brasenose Coll., matric 7 July, 1815, aged 17 ; of Lota Lodge, co. Cork, died s.p. from Alumni Oxoniensis (1715-1886).  He appears to have married yet another Eliza Smith Barry.

The reason for including some of the Petres is partly they are a great story, and also that at George Lynch, and Carmela Lescher’s wedding, the present from “the Hon. Mrs. Petre” was “a writing case”.  She can only be Julia, who becomes the 15th Lady Petre in June 1908, and the Dowager Lady Petre five months later.

We regret to record the death of the Right Rev. Lord Petre, which took place at his London residence, 21, Hyde Park Gardens, on Monday last. The deceased Peer and Prelate was a son of the 12th Baron, by a daughter of the Hon. C. T. Clifford, and succeeded to the title in 1884. He was a Domestic Prelate at the Court of the Vatican, and a Deputy-Lieutenant for the county of Essex. The title goes to the late Lord Petre’s brother, the Hon. Bernard Henry Philip, who was born in 1858. Lord Petre was educated at Stonyhurst, leaving which College he attempted, but unsuccessfully, to embrace the religious life with the Jesuits. Failing this he resolved to pursue the vocation of a secular priest, and resided for some time at Downside, where his great benefactions are remembered with gratitude. Meanwhile he had long been cherishing a number of plans and giving expression to many desires in connection with the education of youth, and a few years after his ordination he resolved to take practical steps in carrying out his determination.

It was in 1877 that Lord Petre, then the Hon. and Rev. Mr. Petre, founded his school at Woburn about which there was destined to arise so vigorous a controversy. He had long been maturing his views upon the method of education in vogue among Catholics, and those views he presently strove to vindicate in two vigorous pamphlets which produced in the English Catholic world an enormous sensation. The first he entitled Remarks on the Present Condition of Catholic Liberal Education and this was quickly followed by The Problem of Catholic Education. His ideal, as explained in these two pamphlets, is well known to all, and need not be brought up again here. His one desire in life was to be a trainer of youth. “A French poet,” he wrote “once declared that God for his sins made him a poet. I fear I myself lie under a similar judgment for being an educator. Certain it is that for years my prayers, studies, and aspirations have been directed to this one aim—to train the minds of youth. But for one of my vocation what opening is there ? Stonyhurst, Downside, Edgbaston, Beaumont, are all charmed circles, the properties of closed corporations, offering nothing to persons situated as I am except on condition of assuming the religious state—a vocation not granted to all. Ushaw, Oscott, St. Edmund’s are in a state of transition, being in part ecclesiastical seminaries and wholly diocesan property. In existing institutions, therefore, there is no place for the free exercise of a vocation that I will venture to call holy. Can I then be blamed if unwilling to throw aside the work of years, and contradict the tried impulse of my character, I venture to open a school of my own ? Nor can I see that by so doing I am fomenting disunion. Disunion arises where private aims are preferred to the public good. From the nature of the case my views can hardly be sordid or selfish ; and I propose, if God gives me health and strength, to lay all my opportunities and powers at the service of the Catholic cause. I have no wish to avoid a healthy criticism, and I will accuse no one of ‘ attack ‘ who may choose to publish his opinion on the growth of my work—be that opinion hostile or the reverse. With advance I shall hope for co-operation. Surely the imputation of disunion or disloyalty can find no footing here.”

In this spirit, then, Woburn was founded, and lasted steadily until 1884, when, shortly before succeeding to the title, he sold the property in deference to the wish of his father. After his father’s death he continued no less fervently in his desire to treat education, as he himself expressed it, “as something of a fine art.” But circumstances were too strong for him. He migrated with his boys to Northwood, in the Isle of Wight. But the new school lasted for a very short time, and when he decided to give up the idea of personal training he practically decided to retire into privacy.

Into the merits of the great controversy upon which Lord Petre so confidently embarked, there is no need to enter here. As to the spirit in which he accepted his task there can be only one opinion. He fought for it with a high spirit that seemed indomitable. In his first pamphlet, not having had much practical experience in pamphleteering, he committed himself—as he himself confessed—to some incautiously expressed propositions relative to the Protestant public schools of England. He spoke in praise of the individuality and the force of character which seems to be so often generated and fostered by their influence among English youth, wished to contend that schools formed somewhat on the model of public schools but informed with Catholic spirit and principle might realize much for English Catholics which heretofore had existed but in desire ; that Catholics, in short, might see their sons growing up in the expansion of mind, definiteness of aim and earnestness of purpose which is said to distinguish their Protestant fellows. At once he was severely taken to task. At once he felt that nothing but a bold front,—an attitude even of defiance—would save his reputation as a Catholic. Such an attitude he declared himself to have unwillingly assumed, and in doing so he lost for the time many valued friends.

The precise value of Lord Petre’s influence over the common scholastic ideal of the time cannot be easily adjudged ; but there cannot be the least doubt that, indirectly at least, he spurred up all the colleges of England to new efforts in the training of their subjects, particularly in the inculcation of a certain refinement which heretofore had been allowed to stand somewhat at a discount. But, as we have said, for nearly eight years he had taken no prominent part in any question of the day. Readers of these pages may, however, remember that when some years ago, a warm controversy arose upon the merits of corporal punishment, Lord Petre took an active part in it, and upon the side where one naturally expected to look for him. His illness was very brief. He had been ailing somewhat ; but on Sunday a serious attack of epileptic fits seized him, and later in the same day he received the Viaticum from Cardinal Vaughan in full consciousness. Later Mgr. Gilbert administered Extreme Unction. He died at 1.30 p.m. on Monday. The body lay in the house in a temporary chapel until Thursday, when it was removed to St. Mary of the Angels, Bayswater. On Friday Solemn Requiem Mass was sung, and to-day (Saturday) the coffin will be conveyed for interment to Thorndon. R. I. P.

The above text was found on p.28, 13th  May 1893 in “The Tablet: The International Catholic News Weekly.” Reproduced with kind permission of the Publisher. The Tablet can be found at http://www.thetablet.co.uk .

The marriage of CAPTAIN EDMUND MOLYNEUX SEEL to MISS CLARE WELD BLUNDELL, youngest daughter of the late Mr. (Thomas) Weld Blundell, of Ince Blundell Hall, was solemnized at St. Mary’s, Chelsea, on Tuesday. The ceremony was performed by Cardinal Vaughan, assisted by Father John Vaughan and the Rev. Benedict Weld Blundell, O.S.B. The nuptial Mass, a Missa cantata, was sung by Father Adrian Weld Blundell. The bride, whose dress was of white satin, trimmed with old lace, with tulle veil, was given away by her brother, Mr. Henry Weld Blundell. Mr. Basil Scott Murray acted as best man. There were six bridesmaids—the Hon. Mary Fraser, Miss Helen Lane-Fox, Miss Dorothy Lane-Fox, Miss May Weld, Miss Lawson, and Miss Teresa Lawson. They wore costumes of green. faced cloth, trimmed with white moire, and black picture hats with black feathers and white lace. After the Mass a large gathering of friends and relatives assembled at 20, Cadogan Gardens, the residence of Mr. George Lane-Fox,[ the bride’s brother in law, through his second wife Annette Weld-Blundell, who he married in 1879] where the wedding breakfast was served. Later in the afternoon the bride and bridegroom left for Dover, en route for the Continent.

Among the wedding presents, which were exceedingly numerous, were : The Duke of Norfolk, diamond and turquoise brooch ; the Ladies Howard, diamond and sapphire brooch ; Lord Lovat, diamond ring ; Lady Lovat, silver tea set ; Lady Herbert of Lea, diamond and turquoise bracelet ; Mrs. G. Lane-Fox, diamond and enamelled brooch ; Mr. George Lane-Fox, a luncheon basket ; Lord and Lady Herries, fan ; Colonel Blundell, pearl and diamond pendant ; Mr. and Mrs. Johnstone, diamond watch bracelet ; Miss Lane, Fox, silver castors ; Lady Charlotte Dundas, silver mounted scent bottle ; Mrs. Hornyhold, ditto ; the Earl and Countess of Loudoun, silver mounted inkstand ; the Hon. B. and Mrs. Maxwell, pearl and diamond necklace ; Mr. Henry Weld Blundell, diamond ring ; the Hon. Mrs. Carrington Smyth, pearl and diamond locket ; the Right Rev. Mgr. Weld, enamelled writing set ; Mr. and Mrs. Robert Walmesley, pearl and diamond aigrette ; Mrs. Weld Blundell, silver mounted dressing bag ; Captain and Mrs. Edward Molyneux Seel, old silver punch bowl; Colonel and Mrs. Eyre Williams, silver mounted claret decanter ; Mrs. Wilmot, silver bowl ; Mr. and Mrs. Bullock, silver dishes ; the Dowager Lady Puleston, silver cigarette case ; Mrs. Charles Weld, lace fan ; the Hon. Lady Mostyn, silver mirror ; Mr. and Mrs. O’Brien, Venetian mirror ; Mr. and Mrs. J. Snead Cox, Dresden figures ; Lady Stafford, jewelled clock, &c. ; Colonel Wade, silver side-dish ; Mrs. Silvertop, silver-gilt salt cellars; Colonel and Mrs. Starkie, gilt spoons ; the Hon. Mrs. A. Fraser, silver spoons.; the Hon. Miss Fraser of Lovat, pearl and diamond bracelet ; the Hon. Ethel Fraser of Lovat, pearl and diamond brooch ; the Dowager Countess of Denbigh, silver tray ; Miss Molyneux Seel, silver lamp ; Miss Monica Walmesley, gilt box ; Captain and Mrs. Glynn, silverspoons ; the Hon. Mabel Sturt, silver jug ; the Hon. Teresa Maxwell, gold snuff-box ; the Hon. Mrs. Charles Petre, gold bowl ; the Count and Countess Torre Diaz, silver tea-maker ; Mrs. Ince Anderton, silver clock ; Lady Henrietta Riddell, silver bowl ; Lord and Lady Camoys, silver mounted paper cutter ; Mr. and Mrs. Parker, decanters ; Mrs. Molyneux Seel, silver Queen Anne coffee-pot ; Mr. H. Campbell, Crown Derby tea set ; Mr. and Mrs. F. Bretherton, Lord Lytton’s works ; the Hon. Mrs. Dundas, old silver mounted quaighs ; Mr. and Mrs. Day, ditto ; Mr. and Mrs. F. Langdale, ditto ; Sir P. and Lady Radcliffe, silver cruets ; the Hon. Mrs. Scott Murray, silver tea urn ; Mr. and Mrs. Walter Weld, silver coffee-pot ; the Hon. L.:.dy Sausse, silver fruit dish ; Mrs. Slade, silver candlesticks ; Mrs. Dalgleish Bellasis, silver vases ; Mrs. Fitzherbert Brockholes, silver vase ; Sir Henry and Lady Bedingfeld, silver vases ; Lady Vavasour, two pictures ; Mr. and Mrs. Russell Howell, antique silver spoons ; Major and Mrs. Ovred, gold and tortoiseshell umbrella ; the Hon. Albert and Mrs. Stourton, gilt box ; Mgr. de Stackpoole, silver box ; Marquise de Stackpoole, silver frame ; Mrs. William Langdale, ditto ; Colonel Thompson, King’s Regiment, silver mounted brushes ; Miss Weld of Leagram, Dresden china clock ; Mr. F. Lane-Fox, silver card. case ; Mr. and the Hon. Mrs. Stapleton Bretherton, mother-of-pearl opera glasses ; Mr. Herbert Stourton, silver salt cellars ; Miss A. Vavasour, oak chair ; the bridegroom, pearl necklace, and many others.

The above text was found on p.24, 3rd November 1894 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 .