Pauline Roche – Page 2 – Forgotten Victorians

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.

Pauline Roche (1835 -1894)

August 27, 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.

To recap briefly, she runs away from home in Bristol to Ireland in 1854, aged about eighteen. She takes her uncle, and guardian, John Roche O’Bryen to court, successfully gets her guardianship changed, and within two years of her court case has married into the Barry family. The Barrys, one way or another, trace themselves back to the Norman invasion of Ireland in the 1170’s, and in various ways have managed to hold on to land, and money, or both, since then. Their original seat was Barryscourt Castle, and they were given the land from Cork to Youghal, about 50 sq. km. One of the main tactics for keeping wealth in the family was marrying cousins, or through the use of marriage settlements, so Pauline’s marriage was unusual. Having said that, she was bringing the modern-day equivalent of about £ 7,000,000 to the marriage, which helps.

So Pauline is marrying into a junior branch of an old established Anglo-Irish family. It all tends to point to her having some established pedigree, as well as cold, hard, cash. At the risk of speculating, I think it may well turn out that in Pauline’s case, the cash, as we know, comes from John Roche, who is both her maternal great grandfather, and paternal great-uncle. The pedigree, is more speculative, but here goes. Henry Hewitt O’Bryen, Pauline’s maternal grandfather, is the grandson of Daniel O’Brien (1717-1758).

Murrough_O'Brien,_1st_Marquess_of_Thomond_KP,_PC_(1726-1808),_5th_Earl_of_Inchiquin_(1777-1800),_by_Henry_Bone — Murrough O’Brien,1st Marquess of Thomond (1726-1808)

Daniel O’Brien appears to be either a bastard son of William, the third Earl of Inchiquin, or potentially more likely, the bastard son of Charles O’Brien, William’s second son. Charles is rather curiously listed as died unmarried, rather than d.s.p. (died without issue). In Irish Pedigrees by John O’Hart; 1892, O’Hart lists an otherwise unlisted elsewhere, Donal, a fourth son of William O’Brien. I don’t think we are pushing things too far to consider William O’Brien bringing up his bastard grandson as part of the household. It’s interesting that another grandson of William’s, Murrough O’Brien, the 5th Earl of Inchiquin, and 1st Marquess of Thomond was reputed to have a bastard son Thomas Carter, the composer (1769 – 1800) who lived with him at Taplow Court in Berkshire

The Irish landed gentry had a much more relaxed attitude to illegitimacy than is perhaps now realised. Henry Hewitt O’Bryen and Mary Roche were staying at Fort Richard, in co. Cork when their first three children were born, and John Galwey, who owned Fort Richard, and their probable host, and Henry’s contemporary, fathered seven children illegitimately at Fort Richard, starting in 1814, before finally settling down and marrying fifteen years later. Father O’Connor, the parish priest, wrote ‘Bastard’ next to each of those names.

So, in Pauline Roche’s case, the cash comes from John Roche who “amassed great wealth during the French wars, and built Aghada House“. We know JR was a merchant, but little more. Ireland’s exports were predominately agricultural, with a fair proportion heading across the Atlantic to the West Indies, and West Indian goods returning, so there is a reasonable possibility of part of John Roche’s money being tainted by slave labour, though no actual evidence yet.

The pedigree is rather looser; quite possibly a link to the O’Bryens at Rostellan Castle. The Earls of Inchiquin, who later became the Marquesses of Thomond lived at Rostellan, which is about a mile away from Aghada, where John Roche had built his house in 1808. In a slight curiosity, both families started spelling O”Bryen with a “y” rather than an “i” at about the same time. We’ve considered the possible link to William O’Brien earlier. Henry Hewitt O’Bryen, Pauline’s maternal grandfather, was the son of Laurence O’Brien, and Jane Hewitt. Their marriage settlement refers to Laurence having a malt house, and the Hewitt family were brewers, and distillers. There is no firm evidence to link Jane Hewitt, and Henry Hewitt, her father, directly to the Hewitt brewing and distilling dynasty, but all the signs point in that direction. The Hewitts established a distillery in 1792, and ran it until 1864 when they sold it to the Cork Distillery Company who eventually evolved into Irish Distillers, now part of Pernod Ricard.

So Pauline’s maternal great, great, grandfather seems to be the bastard son of Irish aristocracy, and Old Irish at that. Topped up with strategic marriages that bring in money at each generation. The trustees and witnesses of the marriage settlement are significant. “John Sarsfield of the City of Corke Merchant & Richard Connell of the said City Esq” are the trustees of the settlement, “Francis Goold & Wm Galway, and Richard Townsend of Castle Townsend” are signatories to Laurence O’Brien’s indentures of leases. “Thomas Hardy of the City of Corke Gent & Matthew Thomas Hewitt of Castle Townsend aforesaid Esq.,” are the witnesses to the agreements.

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. All fabulously complicated…….

Pauline Barry (nee Roche) had died in the autumn of 1894, aged fifty eight,or fifty nine, almost exactly a year before the death of her cousin Mgr. Henry O’Bryen. They were both born in 1835, Pauline was born in Rome, and Mgr. H.H. was born in Montpellier, and they were brought up together in his father/ her uncle’s household.

William and Pauline Barry’s children were: (there is more detail here)

(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. Died 19??
Mary, born 18?? d. after 1911
Henrietta, b. 1873/4,unmarried
Kate. b 1879 unmarried.

Only Edith, and Mary Barry, get married, out of all seven brothers and sisters, . 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…

Edith has three sons with Patrick Hayes, and a son and a daughter with William Babtie.

Mary has two daughters with Cecil Smith-Barry.

Ballyadam House, the family home seems to be large. According to the 1901 Irish census it had 16 rooms, and the out-buildings listed are

9 stables
1 coach house
1 harness room
2 cow houses
1 calf house
2 piggeries
1 fowl house
1 boiling house
1 barn
1 potato house
2 sheds

A total of 24 outbuildings

In 1901 Pauline Barry is listed as the head of household at Ballyadam, and was living there with her sister (Henrietta) Rose and a servant, and she is also listed as the owner of 2 2-room cottages each with 2 outbuildings. In 1911, both Pauline, and Rose are still living there, and they have been joined by their younger sister Kate, and eldest brother Patrick, who is listed as the head of the household. There are two servants living in the house, and their six year old niece Janet Babtie is living with them as well.

In 1901, Cecil and Mary Smith-Barry were living in a reasonably sized house in Castlemartyr, Cork. They had ten rooms, and a couple of stables, and a coach house. the household comprised of Cecil, and Mary, their five year old daughter Cecily Nina, and a twenty three year old house and parlourmaid, Julia Casey. Ten years later, Mary has 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 who is now fifteen, and four year old Edith, and a nineteen year old servant girl.

William Barry of Rockville (1757 – 1824) – children of

August 21, 2016 WillLeave a comment

William Henry Barry of Ballyadam is Pauline Roche’s husband, and one of the grandsons of William Barry, (1757 – 1824) of Rockville

By his marriage with Margaret, eldest daughter of James Barry, of Desert, William Barry, (1757 – 1824) of Rockville, had issue— in fact 11 sons, and 3 daughters. For such a fecund family, it’s curious that half were unmarried, or childless.

Edmund died in infancy.
James (1782 -1846) was married in 1818; to Elizabeth, daughter of Edward Barry, of Kilbolane. They had two sons, and two daughters, and only Anna Maria Barry married. She
married (1860) her cousin, Philip W. Creagh, solicitor, had issue— Captain James Wm. Joseph Creagh, born 18th Sept., 1863 : Philip William Creagh, veterinary surgeon, Fermoy, born 5th July, 1866; Eliza Mary Josephine, born 18th June, 1862, died 15th August, 1866
David of Barry’s Lodge, gentleman. He married Julia Geran of Mitchelstown. They had Richard, a unmarried son, who was a “gentleman rider” and died in 1899, and three daughters, only one of whom, Mary, married.
Edmond M.D., died unmarried soon after having taken out his degree.
Richard of Greenville, gentleman, married Catherine, eldest daughter of John Galwey, of Rocklodge, Monkstown, county Cork, and Doon, county Clare.
William lieut. R.N., son of William Barry, of Rockville, died unmarried.
Thomas gentleman married, about the 15th of November, 1829, Julia, daughter of Stephen Murphy, of the city of Cork, draper,
Garrett of Greenville, gentleman, J.P., owner of the famous racehorses Arthur and Waitawhile, died unmarried
Patrick of Cork, gentleman, died 1861, having married Mary Anne, daughter of Stephen Murphy, of the city of Cork, draper. Pauline Roche’s Father in law
John M.D., medical officer of the Carrignavar dispensary
Henry of Ballyadam, gentleman, barony constable of Barrymore, coroner of the east riding of the county of Cork, Belgian Consul for the port of Cork, Knight of the Order of Leopold, etc., married a Miss Mary Lynch, and died on the 16th of December, 1868, without issue. Henry left his estates to 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 is Pauline Roche’s husband
Johanna (1784 – 1873) and died unmarried.
Ellen second daughter of William Barry, of Rockville, married James Fitzgerald, of Castlelyons, gentleman, and had issue an only son, William Edmond Fitzgerald, who died unmarried in Australia.
Mary third daughter of William Barry, of Rockville, died unmarried.

Captain William Hayes, D.S.O

August 15, 2016 WillLeave a comment

He is Pauline Roche‘s eldest grandson.

Captain William Hayes, D.S.O., Queen’s (R. West Surrey) Regt. and Staff Captain, died on October 20, at a stationary hospital abroad (Genoa) , of pneumonia following influenza.. He was the eldest of the three sons of the late Major Patrick Aloysius Hayes, R.A.M.C., and of Lady Babtie, and step-son of Lieut.-General Sir William Babtie, V.C. Born in 1891, he was educated at Beaumont and Sandhurst, and was gazetted to the Queen’s in 1911. With the 1st Battalion he accompanied the original Expeditionary Force to France, taking part in the Mons retreat and the battles of the Marne and the Aisne, in the latter of which he was very severely wounded. He returned to the Front in 1915, joining the 2nd Battalion of his regiment, but was soon afterwards invalided as a result of shell concussion. In 1916 he rejoined the 2nd Battalion in time to take part in the battle of the Somme. He was appointed second in command, with the temporary rank of major, and for his services in that capacity while in temporary command of his battalion was mentioned in dispatches, and awarded the D.S.O. in 1917. Later in that year he proceeded to another front, and in 1918 he was appointed Staff Captain on the lines of communication. He had just returned from leave in England when attacked by influenza. One who knew him writes :—” A keen soldier, whose heart and soul was in the honour and credit of the Queen’s, he was a man of character and of great personal charm, and his memory will live long in the hearts and minds of his regiment and of his multitude of friends in and out of the Army.”

The above text was found on p.18, 2nd November 1918 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 .

Barry of Ballyadam

July 31, 2016 WillLeave a comment

This is a continuation in part of the Pauline Roche story. I love Pauline Roche, she’s the sort of relation everyone should have in their family history. Her story is so bizarre that it reads like a novel. So just to recap, she is John Roche’s great-granddaughter, and in an unintended way, one of the major beneficiaries of his will, at her marriage, she was said to have about £7,000. She 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.

The following is extracted from BARRYMORE :RECORDS OF THE BARRYS OF COUNTY CORK FROM THE EARLIEST TO THE PRESENT TIME. WITH PEDIGREES. By the Rev. E. BARRY, M.R.I.A., V.P.R.S.A. Reprinted from the Journal of the Cork Historical and Archeological Society.CORK. PUBLISHED BY GUY AND CO. LTD, 70 PATRICK STREET. 1902.

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.

William Henry Barry is Pauline Roche’s husband, and William Barry, of Rockville is William Henry Barry’s grandfather. So Pauline was marrying into the Catholic Irish landed gentry; being an heiress with £ 7,000 probably helped. What is slightly curious is why there was no apparent attempt to marry her off to an O’Bryen cousin, but then given her treatment by her uncle, perhaps she had washed her hands of them. Perhaps it was love, perhaps it was status, perhaps both.

Back to the Rev. Barry: By his marriage with Margaret, eldest daughter of James Barry, of Desert, William Barry, of Rockville, had issue— 14 children (11 sons and 3 daughters)

Edmund, who died in infancy.
James Barry, of Dundullerick, (1782,-1846) having married in 1818 Elizabeth, daughter of Edward Barry, of Kilbolane, gentleman, and had issue: (1) William Barry, of Dundullerick, gentleman, who died unmarried 3rd February, 1875
(2) Edward Barry, barrister-at-law, secretary to Sir Edward Sullivan, Master of the Rolls, died unmarried 9th June, 1873;
(1) Anna Maria, married (1860) her cousin, Philip W. Creagh, solicitor, had issue— Captain James Wm. Joseph Creagh, born 18th Sept., 1863 : Philip William Creagh, veterinary surgeon, Fermoy, born 5th July, 1866; Eliza Mary Josephine, born 18th June, 1862, died 15 th August, 1866;
(2) Margaret, died unmarried 5th October, 1893.

3. David Barry, of Barry’s Lodge, gentleman, married Julia, daughter of Counsellor Geran, of Mitchelstown, and had issue—Richard Barry, of Barry’s Lodge, gentleman, famous as a gentleman rider, died unmarried, 1895; Mary, married to John Burns, of Aghern, gentleman ; Margaret, Julia.

4. Edmond Barry, M.D., died unmarried soon after having taken out his degree.

5. Richard Barry, of Greenville, gentleman, married Catherine, eldest daughter of John Galwey, of Rocklodge, Monkstown, county Cork, and Doon, county Clare, gentleman, third son of John Galwey, of Lota, county. Cork, and Westcourt, county Kilkenny, gentleman.

6. William Barry, lieut. R.N., son of William Barry, of Rockville, died unmarried.

7. Thomas Barry, of Rockville, gentleman, son of William Barry, of Rockville, married, about the 15th of November, 1829, Julia, daughter of Stephen Murphy, of the city of Cork, draper, and had issue—

(1) William Barry, of Rockville and Greenville, M.D., assist-surgeon H.M. 36th Regiment of Foot. He married a daughter of Count Rivilioli, and died the 17th day of June, 1887. All his children by his marriage with Miss Rivilioli died in childhood except Thomas and Beatrice, and perhaps Stephen;

(2) Thomas, heir to his uncle William, died unmarried;
(3) Stephen Barry, of Broom-field, county Cork, gentleman, a successful breeder of racehorses, who died unmarried on the 17th May, 1899;
(4) Ada, unmarried;

(5) Mary, unmarried.

8. Garrett Barry, of Greenville, gentleman, J.P., owner of the famous racehorses Arthur and Waitawhile, died unmarried.

9. 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,and

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 [Henry Hewitt] 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. The issue of the marriage of William Henry Barry and Pauline Roche are:
(1) Henry, born 1862;
(2) William Gerard;
(3) Pauline;
(4) Edith, married — Hayes, surgeon-major H. M. Army Medical Department, and has issue;
(5) 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];
(6) Henrietta,
(7) Kate.

10. John Barry, Esq., M.D., medical officer of the Carrignavar dispensary district, and next of the Carrigtwohill dispensary district. He married Ellen, daughter of Mr. David Kearney, of Newcastle, county Tipperary, and died in December, 1879, leaving two sons and a daughter:

11. Henry Barry, of Ballyadam, gentleman, barony constable of Barrymore, coroner of the east riding of the county of Cork, Belgian Consul for the port of Cork, Knight of the Order of Leopold, etc., married a Miss Mary Lynch, and died on the 16th of December, 1868, without issue.

(1) Johanna, the eldest daughter of William Barry, of Rockville, was born on the 1st of July, 1784, and died unmarried 1873.

(2). Ellen, second daughter of William Barry, of Rockville, married James Fitzgerald, of Castlelyons, gentleman, and had issue an only son, William Edmond Fitzgerald, who died unmarried in Australia.

(3.) Mary, third daughter of William Barry, of Rockville, died unmarried.

So William Henry, and Pauline are part of a huge extended family. He has eleven uncles, and three aunts on his father’s side of the family alone, and she has five uncles, and an aunt on her mother’s side. I’m not even going to attempt to work out how many uncles and aunts they both have in total.

The next step is to look at Pauline and William’s children

Roche v. O’Brien 1849

July 30, 2016April 23, 2020 WillLeave a comment

THE IRISH JURIST: VOL. I. – MISCELLANEOUS: FOR THE YEAR 1849. (page 156)

COURT OF EXCHEQUER CHAMBER

ROCHE v. O’BRIEN—Feb. 1, 2.

This was error from the judgment of the Court of Queen’s Bench. The action was in covenant by the heir-at-law of John Roche the lessor, claiming the reversion in fee against the assignee of William Roche, the lessee, who claimed as devisee of the reversion in fee after the estate tail created by the will of the lessor. The remaining facts appear sufficiently in the judgment of the court. The whole question turned upon the construction of the Will and codicil of John Roche, which were as follows:
“Whenever it happens that the Aghada estate, is absent of male heirs, to wit, of the said James Joseph Roche, or by any other contingency reverts wholly to me, I hereby leave it in as full a manner as I can convey it to my nephew, William Roche, to be enjoyed by him and his lawful begotten heirs male for ever ; and, as I have perfected leases to be held in trust, of the demesne and two adjoining farms of Aghada, subject to a yearly rent accord-ing to a valuation made, I leave him my interest, if any I had, in those leases; and in case of his not coming into possession of the estate by the means before-mentioned, I leave him £6,000 of my £4 per cent. stock, to be held by trustees, the interest of which is to pay the rent of the demesne and two farms above mentioned; to my eldest grandson, James J. R. O’Brien I leave £10,000 £4 per cent. stock; to my grand-daughter, Jane O’Brien, I leave £4,000 £4 per cent. stock; to my daughter, Mary O’Brien, I leave the £4,000 £4 per cent. stock I settled on her as a marriage portion on her marriage, for her use and that of her younger children; to my niece, Ellen Verling, I leave £1,000 £4 per cent, stock, with £30 a-year profit rent I leave on her brother Bartholomew Verling’s stores; to my grandson, J. Roche O’Brien, I leave also my interest in White Point, after his mother’s death; I leave £100 to my sister, Ellen Verling; to my sister, Julia Enery, £100; to my nephew, Doctor Verling, and his sister, Catherine Ellis, £100 each, and I desire the stock on the farm to be sold to pay these legacies; to my nephew, William Roche, and my grand-daughter, Jane O’Brien, I give my household furniture, plate, &c., and it is my wish, if the rules of our church allow it, that they should be married and live in Aghada house; may it bless and prosper them and their offspring. To the parish of Aghada, I leave the school-house, and £20 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 a-year during their lives: having had unfounded confidence in my unhappy nephew, James Roche, I did not take legal means under the settlement I made to secure those last bequests out of the Aghada estate; I trust, and hope, and desire that whosoever is in possession of the estate do confirm these my wishes and intents. I appoint my trusty friend, Henry Bennett, (my present law agent) William Roche, and my daughter, Mary O’Brien as executors of this my last will.”

The codicil to the will was as follows :—

By my will dated the 5th day of January, 1826, I appointed my friend Henry Bennett, my nephew, William Roche, and my daughter, Mary O’Brien, executors to that will; now, by this codicil, I annul that appointment, and appoint John Gibson, barrister-at-law, Bartholomew Hackett, of Middleton, distiller, and my nephew, William Roche, as my executors to that will, and do hereby empower them to name and appoint two trustees for the purpose of managing the sums I left to my nephew, William Roche, my grand-daughter, Jane O’Brien, and my grandson, J. O’Brien, as it is my intent and will that they should only receive the interest, and the principal to remain untouched during their lives, to go to their children; out of William Roche’s interest the rent of Aghada which I have leased him is to be paid ; and I desire that he and my grand-daughter Jane, who are shortly to be married, will reside there. I leave William Roche all the stock, &c., on the farm, and to him and his wife all my household furniture, plate, and china, and make them my residuary legatees ; it is my will that my grandson, James R. O’Brien, shall live with them at Aghada until he is of age, which is to be at the age of twenty-five, and not before ; and the trustees are to pay him until that period £100 a-year to complete his education, and another £100 a-year during that period to his mother, and the remainder of the interest of his £10,000 to be paid William Roche to assist him in keeping up Aghada during that period, and I trust by that time he will have a profession by which he will add to his income ; I request and desire that nothing shall prevent his following his profession ; it is my intention that William Roche and his wife shall step into possession of Aghada house, demesne, and farms, which are leased to him in the same way that I leave it when it shall please God to take me ; in case of the death of William Roche before his wife, she is to be paid the interest of her £4,000, to be made up £200 a-year as her jointure ; and if she dies before him, he is to have the £10,000, provided she has no issue; but if she leaves issue, it is to go to them after William Roche’s death, as before directed.”

Sir С. О Loghlen for the plaintiff in error, the defendant below.—The question is, whether William Roche took an estate tail alone, or an estate tail with an expectant or reversionary fee. First, it is clear that the testator did not mean to die intestate, and, that nothing might be undisposed of, made William Roche and his wife residuary legatees. Secondly, that the testator having a contingent reversion in fee in the property, he devised it from his heir at law, and gave it to another, charging it in such a manner as to shew that whoever should have the property should take under the will. These charges cannot be enforced against the heir at law, as he takes by title paramount. Thirdly, that, having his heir at law in contemplation, he took from him that he would otherwise be clearly entitled to. He had most fully provided for him, and designedly gave the property to William Roche, for the purpose of founding a family of the name of Roche, who were to dwell in Aghada house. If the construction contended for by the plaintiff below be the true one, the manifest intention of the testator is wholly defeated. The reversion would not be disposed of; his heir would take at law, and not under the will ; and the estate would go to the very person he intended to deprive of it. The first portion of the sentence, ” I hereby leave it (the Aghada estate) in as full a manner as I can convey it,” conveyed the fee simple, and the subsequent words, ” lawful begotten male heirs for ever,” reduce it to an estate tail, with a reversion in fee. Chyck’s case, (Dy. 357, Pasch. 19, El.) That case, as reported in Dyer, is still law, and the case reported in Benloe, 300, and Anderson, 51 by the name of Baker v. Raymond, is not the same. In Abraham v. Twig, (Moore 425, 11 Jac.); Roberts v. Roberts, (2 Bul. 127, 13 Jac.) ; Blanford v. Blanford, (1 Rol. 320, 21 Jac.) ; Sergeant’s case, (2 Rol. 425) ; Herbert v. Thomas, (Har. and Wol. 434—per Littledale, J.) ; Doe d. Herbert v. Thomas, (3 Ad. & El. 128, Sheph. Touch. 445). All these authorities rely on Chyck’s case, as cited in Dyer. Daniel v. Uply, (Latch. 43,) is a decision to the same effect, by Doderidge, J., who was either at the bar or on the bench at the time of the decision of Chyck’s case. The following cases and authorities were also relied upon, and commented on during the argument—Turnman v. Cooper, (Cro. Jac. 476, S. C. Rol. Rep. 19, 23, S. C. Poph. 138; 1 Thomas’s Co. Litt. 518, 21 a.); Altham’s case, (8 Coke 154, b.) denied to be law in Turnman v. Cooper, (Pop. 138; Year Book, 21 Hen. 6, 723, b). (Blackburne, C. J.—That was the case of a deed where the whole estate passed from the grantor.) (Anon. Brownl.45) ; Holland v. Fisher, (O’Bridg. 212; 1 Steph. Black. Com. 460); Mellish v. Mellish, (2 В & C. 520) ; Barker v. Giles, (2 P. W. 279, S. C., affirmed on appeal ; 3 Bro. P. C. 297) ; Littleton & Ux v. Green, (4 M. & W. 229) ; Nanfan v. Legh, (7 Taun. 85, S.C. 2 Marsh. 107) ; Doe d. Ellis v. Ellis, (9 East. 382) ; Davie v. Stevens, (1 Doug. 321); Doe d. Murch v. Marchant, (6 Man. & Gr. 813).

Chatterton, with him R. W. Greene, Q. C., and F. Fitzgerald, Q. C., contended—That, according to the true construction of the will, William Roche took only an estate tail. That the construction contended for by the defendant below would tend further to defeat the testator’s intention to found a family, than that sought to be put upon the will by the plaintiff, as the fee would be more easily alienated. That the devise shewed no intention of the testator to dispose of his whole property ; the words were, not my estate, but ” the Aghada estate,” words of description only. The charges made by the testator upon the devised estate would take place on the reversion, whether the estate be taken by descent, or under the will. That the reversion was disposed of, and that there was no general intention expressed in the will inconsistent with an estate tail. The learned counsel distinguished Chyck’s case, and Turnam v. Cooper, and cited and referred to Altham’s case, (8 Coke, 154, b.); Ossulton’s case, (3 Salk. 336) ; Baker v. Wall, (1 Lord Ray. 185) ; Doe d. Lord Lindsay v. Colyear, (11 East. 548) ; Slater v. Slater, (5 T. R. 335) ; Nanfan v. Legh, (2 Marsh. 107, S. C.; 7 Taun. 85) ; Davie v. Stevens, (Doug. 32l ; Co. Litt. 27, a.); Church v. Wyatt, (F. Moore, 637) ; Wood v. Ingersole, (1 Bul. 63) ; Doe d. Eustace v Earley, (1 Cr. M.& Ros. 823); Winter v. Perrott (9 Cl. & Fin. 613) ; Angell v. Angell, (9 Q. В. 353) ; Oddie v. Woodford, (3 My. & Cr. 584); Doe d. Ellis v. Ellis, (9 East. 382) ; Trenke v. Frencham. (2Dy. 171) ; Chilton v. Cooper, (2 B. & Ald. 610),

Napier, Q. C., in reply—The court will effectuate the intention expressed on the face of the will. It is clear from the whole testament, the testator thought he was devising the property out and out. There is first a general expression conveying the fee, and the subsequent words cannot narrow it. By the ” Aghada estate,” he intended his whole interest, and to convey it ” in as full a manner as he could,” when he should become possessed of the reversion in fee, and the charges evidence that intention to deal with the whole. He referred to Randall v. Tuchin, (6 Taun. 418—per Chambre. J.) ; Moffet v. Catherwood, (AI. & Nap. 472) ; Cotton v. Stenlake, (12 East. 515).

Feb. 2.—ВLACKBURNE, C. J., now delivered the judgment of the court.—This is an action of covenant brought by the plaintiff below as heir at law of John Roche, the testator, claiming the rent reserved in a lease executed by John Roche to Wm. Roche, whose assigns the defendants are, and the plaintiff below insists he is entitled to the reversion, as heir at law of John Roche. The declaration states a settlement executed on the marriage of the testator’s nephew, James J. Roche, limiting the estate to John Roche for life, remainder to James Joseph Roche for life, remainder to him in tail male, with the reversion in fee to John Roche, the settlor. It then states the will of John Roche, devising his reversion to William Roche in tail male, and the death of William and James without issue male, and traces the descent of the reversion to the plaintiff. The plea of the defendant sets out the will and the codicil of the testator, John Roche, in haec verba, on the construction of which the question in this case wholly depends. The plaintiff below alleges that Wm. Roche took only an estate tail, which has now determined. (The learned Chief Justice then read the words of the will.) It is not denied that the words in the devise give an estate tail, Lord Ossulton’s case, (3 Salk. 336,) puts this question beyond doubt. The addition of the word “for ever,” makes no difference. Baker v. Wall, (1 Ld. Raymond 185). Davie v. Stevens, (1 Doug. 320,) was a devise to A. of the ” fee simple and inheritance of Lower Shelstone, to him and his child, or children, for ever.” The language of Lord Маnsfield is, every word, applicable to this case. Nanfan v. Legh, (7 Taunt. 85,) is a leading authority, and has a strong resemblance to this case, and there the devise was held to confer an estate tail, and no more, and for this position there will be found a large body of authority. The defendant below contends that there is a devise to Wm. Roche of two distinct estates, first, an estate in tail male ; and secondly, of an estate in fee expectant on the reversion. To maintain this view the sentence is divided in two, and the order of it inverted, for the purpose of avoiding the absurdity that would follow. I know of no authority for so altering the plain language of a will. The contract requires no such construction, but rather the contrary. I shall only say, that in all the reasons given in the cases for this construction, it never occurred that in a devise a sentence could be stopped in the middle. The judgment of my brother Crampton in the court below contains so able a review of Chycke’s case, that I shall not further refer to it. The judgment of Lord Ellenborough in Doe d. Ellis v. Ellis, (9 East. 882) which is now impugned by the defendant below contains a clear exposition of the law. No one can
read that case without seeing that it militates against the whole argument of the defendant’s counsel. Considering the whole will, we think the inference to be drawn from it is, that the testator intended W. Roche to take an estate tail only.

Judgment affirmed.

__________________

Poor little rich girl – Pauline Roche 1835 – 1894

July 25, 2016September 24, 2021 Will3 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is a full transcript of the newspaper reports, here. JROB’s defence of his behaviour is quite extraordinary,and also included in the transcripts. It is something I’ll come back to in another post. It is quite clearly carefully planned, and done with the support of the editor of the Bristol Mercury. The italics for inference are printed in the paper, so it is definitely planned with some care, and not just a letter to the editor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aghada House 1

March 22, 2016 WillLeave a comment

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.

Aghada House was, apparently, a large Georgian house designed by the Cork architect Abraham Hargrave (1755-1808), and built for John Roche (Ernest O’Bryen’s great grandfather) . It was completed in 1808. John Roche was also responsible for the start of the Aghada National School in 1819. John Roche appears to have left his house to his nephews, James Joseph Roche, and William Roche, who were, I think, cousins rather than brothers. William Roche died in 1836, and James Joseph and his family were living there until James’s death in 1847.

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.

The house and land were sold in July 1853 in the Encumbered Estates Court, as part of the estates of Joseph Roche, and William Roche, with Mary (Maria Josepha) and Eleanor Roche listed as owners, and Pauline Roche as ex parte.

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

The house appeared to have briefly in the possession of Henry Hewitt O’Bryen, and was then bought by Major General Sir Joseph Lucas Thackwell in 1853. 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). 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.

The house was left to their son Major William de Wilton Roche Thackwell (1834-1910). He married Charlotte (daughter of Rev. Tomkinson). William R. Thackwell lived in Aghada Hall house until 1894.Their eldest daughter Katherine Harriet Thackwell married Col. Edward Rawdon Penrose who in 1891 changed his surname by Royal Licence to Thackwell. There is an account of their wedding on the Housetorian website.

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

The mysterious John Roche d. 1829

March 7, 2016 WillLeave a comment

John Roche c.1755 – 1829 is the father of

Mary, 1780 – 1852 m. Nov 1807 Henry Hewitt O’Bryen (1780 – 1836)

and the grandfather of John Roche O’Bryen, Jane Roche (nee O’Bryen), and at the same time both the great-grandfather, and great uncle of Pauline Roche. Pauline Roche’s mother is John Roche’s grand-daughter Jane O’Bryen, and her father is his nephew William Roche.

John Roche appears to have two brothers, and two sisters:

Hugh, who is the father of

James Joseph Roche

Hugh Roche

Lawrence who is the father of

William m. Jane O’Bryen and father of Pauline Roche

Ellen m. John Verling and mother of

Bartholomew Verling

James Roche Verling

Catherine Ellis (nee Verling)

Ellen Verling Jnr.

Julia m. ? Enery

Sources:

Irish Journal of Medical Science, January 1971, Volume 140, Issue 1, pp 30-44 – regarding the Irish doctors who attended Napoleon on St Helena including James Roche Verling

References to (Ellen Verling??) and her brothers John and Laurence Roche of Aghada as members of the council of Cork. Also refers to James Roche Verling having a brother Bartholomew who was a J.P.

From Roche v O’Brien, and his will, we know that John Roche has two sisters

Julia Enery, Ellen Verling

And at least four nephews

James Joseph Roche, William Roche, Bartholomew Verling, and Doctor (James Roche) Verling

And at least two nieces

Ellen Verling jnr, and Catherine Ellis (nee Verling)

From the BLG 1847 entry we know there is another brother Hugh, who is the father of James Joseph Roche, and Hugh Roche jnr

From Barrymore Records we know William Roche is the son of Laurence Roche

Henry Hewitt O’Bryen Senior (1780 -1836) and Mary Roche ( 1780 – 1852 )

March 7, 2016 Will6 Comments

Henry is Ernest O’Bryen’s paternal grandfather

Following the same convention I have done elsewhere, I am planning to make this HHOB, Senior, to distinguish him from his fourth son Henry Hewitt O’Bryen Junior, and also from two grandsons. Henry Hewitt O’Bryen b. 1835, son of John Roche O’Bryen, and Henry Hewitt O’Bryen b. 1845, son of Robert Hewitt O’Bryen. They will be referred to throughout as Mgr O’Bryen, and Henry Hewitt O’Bryen III.

Henry Hewitt O’Bryen was born in 1780 in Ireland , and died on the 11th May 1836 in Cobh, County Cork. He married Mary Roche in November 1807 in Whitepoint, Cove, Co. Cork, she was the daughter of John Roche and Miss Collins?. She was born in Ireland in 1780 and died in 1852.

He is the son of Laurence O’Brien and Jane Hewitt who married on the 20th March 1778 in Castle Townsend, County Cork. He was born in1754 in Ireland. Jane was the daughter of Henry Hewitt and an unknown mother. Henry appears to have a brother Stephen Laurence O’Bryen though this is unconfirmed.

Henry’s paternal grandparents appear to be Daniel O’Brien was born 1717, and died 1758 in Castletownsend, Co. Cork, and Ann Sullivan. They married in 1743, in Cork.

The children of Henry Hewitt O’Bryen Senior and Mary Roche are:

Jane O’Bryen, born 1808; died 1837. She married William Roche. b. ????, died 26th September 1835. They are the parents of Pauline Roche, born 1836 in Rome.

John Roche O’Bryen, born 1810 in Cork, Ireland; died 26 Jul 1870 in London.

Hewitt O’Bryen, born 1812 in Ireland; died 14 Jun 1845 in Norfolk, without issue. He married Louisa Grace Ann Hoare 1836 in Limerick, Ireland; born 1805 in Cork, Ireland; died 1861 in Bath.

Robert Hewitt O’Bryen, born 1814 in Ireland; died 1888 in Cork, Ireland. He married Jeanette Augusta Hargrave 1837 in Cloyne, County Cork. She died 1848 in Aghada, County Cork.

Henry Hewitt O’Bryen Junior, born 1815 in Ireland; died 22 Feb 1873 in Aghada, Co. Cork, Ireland. He married (1) Charlotte Roche 1836 in County Cork (uncertain). He married (2) Jessie Harriett Sudlow 10 Jan 1860 in Queenstown, County Cork. She was born 1829 in Liverpool, and died 1912 in Dublin, Ireland.

Stephen Hewitt O’Bryen, born Unknown in Ireland; died 1872 in Gibraltar. He married Mary Isabella Hewson 1866 in Dublin , daughter of Frank Hewson. (second marriage 1872 ? in Cork)

Mary A O’Bryen, born Unknown in Ireland; died 1863 in Cobh (Queenstown), Ireland.