agrarian disturbances around crossmaglen, 1835-1855: part vii

Cumann Seanchais Ard Mhacha/Armagh Diocesan Historical Society

Agrarian Disturbances around Crossmaglen, 1835-1855: Part VIIAuthor(s): Kevin McMahonSource: Seanchas Ardmhacha: Journal of the Armagh Diocesan Historical Society, Vol. 13, No.2 (1989), pp. 167-229Published by: Cumann Seanchais Ard Mhacha/Armagh Diocesan Historical SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/29742386 .

Accessed: 17/06/2014 21:57

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Cumann Seanchais Ard Mhacha/Armagh Diocesan Historical Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to Seanchas Ardmhacha: Journal of the Armagh Diocesan Historical Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.109 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 21:57:57 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=adhs

http://www.jstor.org/stable/29742386?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Agrarian Disturbances around

Crossmaglen, 1835-1855 Part VII

By Kevin McMahon

14. The Murder of Thomas Douglas Bateson

On 5 December 1851, Thomas Douglas Bateson, a magistrate and

landagent of Lord Templeton's estate in north Monaghan, died at Rule's hotel, in Castleblayney, as a result of injuries received when he was attacked on the previous evening, a short distance from the town.

Writing from Castleblayney on 5 December, Patrick Howley, RM, Carrickmacross, reported the murder and the circumstances surround?

ing it to Thomas Redington, Under-Secretary, Dublin Castle:?

... A sad and atrocious outrage was committed in this neighbourhood on yesterday

which, at 4 o'clock p.m. today, resulted in the death of Thomas Douglas Bateson, Esq.,

J.P., brother of Sir Robert Bateson and landagent of Lord Templeton. As he was

returning from the model farm of that nobleman, on foot, about half past four o'clock

p.m., at Killygola, parish of Muckno, barony of Cremorne, he was attacked by three

persons, names at present unknown, who inflicted such wounds on his head with the butt

end of two pistols, which were found after them on the road, and with stones, as to have

caused his death today. One of the pistols appeared to have been recently discharged, but

in my mind took no effect, no traces of it being discoverable on his person. A child, about

twelve years of age, who had been driving cattle into this town (the scene being within one

mile of it), gave a distinct narrative of this tragic scene, but was not sufficiently close to see

the features of the parties engaged. On the day of this outrage, Mr. Bateson and I

attended Petty Sessions here and, on their termination, we returned together to the hotel,

which was his usual place of residence. He told me he was about going to his farm. A man

accosted him in the hall, requesting he would give him back his land. He said twice he

would never give it to him. The man still pressed his request and Mr. Bateson's reply struck me very forcibly, being very loudly and emphatically pronounced: 'So help me

God, you shall never get it'. I should not be surprised if this unguarded expression sealed

his doom, in a very few hours afterwards. It is rather a singular coincidence that he and I,

after dinner the previous night (3rd inst.), spoke a good deal about the neighbourhood in

question, and that I promised to lay before the magistrates at Petty Sessions next day an

application for the formation of a police station in the district in question by the

withdrawal of three of the Monaghan police stationed at present in the Co. Armagh, on

the same line of road. Mr. Bateson promised after a little time to build a barrack for them.

I did make the proposition to the magistrates, but they said they would do nothing in the

matter, unless convened for that specific object by the County Lieutenant. So the matter

fell to the ground. I had been at considerable expense in procuring private information

and, from what I learned regarding the district between Castleblayney and the borders of

Co. Armagh, had every reason to apprehend an organised resistance against the payment of rents. Lord Blayney has given over his property to the management of Mr. Bates, an

English Chancery barrister who, it is said, is to give him a stipulated sum per annum out of

167



168 Seanchas Ard M hacha

it. This gentleman was here until the last ten days, but a large meeting of the tenantry

being called to solicit abatements, he became a little nervous and returned to England. On

the day of the meeting, I came over here, waited on him and offered to afford him any protection he might deem advisable. He appeared very much agitated and said he would return to England for the present. Mr. Golding, J.P., who was very popular amongst the

tenantry as an agent, has been discontinued and these matters have tended to disorganise the district very much and give a wider scope to Ribbonism in the neighbourhood. I will remain here for a little time, if not disapproved of, to endeavour to make out a clue to this sad affair. As the days are so short, very little can be done by flying visits between here and my station, at Carrickmacross. I have had a note from Lord Rossmore, asking me to

meet him and the magistrates of the district here tomorrow. I will report to you again on

its termination, also the result of the coroner's inquest which, I take for granted, will be wilful murder against some persons unknown . . .*

The Dundalk Democrat also reported Thomas Douglas Bateson's murder:?

. . . This awful occurrence took place on Thursday evening last, about threequarters of a

mile from Castleblayney, on the Keady road. Mr. Bateson, who was a magistrate,

presided at the Petty Sessions in Castleblayney up to 2 o'clock on Thursday, at which time

he left the courthouse. It is stated by some parties that he was then waited on by some of

the tenantry of Lord Templeton, against whom decrees were obtained and who expected to be evicted on the following day. The tenants, we are told, implored his indulgence and

it is stated his reply was 'that he would evict them and that they would find the proceedings taken against them would not end in a farce'. Mr. Bateson then proceeded, on foot, to a

model farm of his at Corratanty, about a mile from Castleblayney, where he remained for some time. He left the farm before 4 o'clock to return home and, when about half-way, he

was brutally attacked by three persons and beaten in the most savage manner, until nearly

deprived of life. A shot was first fired at Mr. Bateson but the ball, it is supposed, not

having taken effect, his assassins attacked him with sticks and stones and so battered his

skull that some of the brains were found on his clothes. The noise of the Armagh omnibus, which was approaching at the time, compelled the murderers to take flight and they left

the unfortunate gentleman weltering in his blood on the side of the road and completely senseless. When discovered, he was unable to speak. He was then carried on a door to

Rule's hotel where medical assistance was procured and everything done to alleviate his

sufferings. He never spoke after being taken to the hotel and on yesterday evening at half

past 4 o'clock he breathed his last . . .2

On the evening of Thomas Douglas Bateson's death, an inquest was held at Castleblayney and the verdict was, as Patrick Howley predicted, '. . . wilful murder against some person or persons unknown . . .'3 After

the inquest, the Monaghan magistrates also held a meeting at

Castleblayney, at which the following resolution was adopted:?

. . . That considering such murder as resulting from Mr. Bateson's connection with the

estate as agent, it is the opinion of this meeting that a considerable force of the police ?

not less than 50 ? should be sent down immediately and be quartered upon the tenantry of the estate of Lord Templeton, in the parishes of Muckno and Clontibret, and that the

charges of said force be levied off the following townlands, viz. (this list shall be supplied

1 ISPO, Outrage Papers, Monaghan, 1851.

2 Dundalk Democrat, 6.12.1851. 3

ISPO, Outrage Papers, Monaghan, 1851.



Agrarian Disturbances around Crossmaglen 169

tomorrow, as there was no time for obtaining it accurately today), and that the entirety of

the beforementioned parishes be proclaimed . . .4

The resolution was signed by Lord Rossmore, Lieutenant of County Monaghan, and, when forwarding it to the Earl of Clarendon, the Lord

Lieutenant, he wrote:?

Rossmore Park, Monaghan, 6 December 1851. My Lord, I enclose a copy of the

resolution entered into today by the meeting of magistrates which I apprised your lordship

yesterday I had summoned for today. The magistrates were aware that the allocation of

the police to an estate has never been acted upon before, but as the abominable outrage has been committed on the agent of that estate, as the agent, and on no other ground, we

unanimously adopted the idea, and I am desired by the magistrates to recommend it for

your Excellency's consideration accordingly. My own idea is that the number of police

(50) is too small and I am satisfied that 100 would not be too many in the first instance.

They could be easily decreased, if advisable, but the terror to be infused into the people of

the district at once would be most important and loudly called for. These illegal societies

are principally composed of farmers' sons and farmers' boys or labourers. I do not mean to

say that the farmers themselves are ignorant of the existence of such societies, nor of the

subscriptions raised by them for illegal and murderous objects, but they are afraid to

oppose them and they wink at their establishment and dread the effect on themselves of

the combination. When once, however, an expensive force is located upon them, they will

be obliged to discountenance the proceedings that have entailed such severe expenses

upon them. This is my decided opinion and I beg to draw your Excellency's attention to

the several cases of Mr. Mauleverer's murder5 and the others in the same district where

the criminals got off with impunity. In my mind, there is nothing else for it now. The

Ribbon system has got to such a pitch and is so rife on the borders of Armagh, Louth and

Monaghan about Crossmaglen and 'the blackquarter' that property and life are no longer secure. There is no doubt that this murder had been concocted for some time, but nothing has appeared in Mr. Bateson's conduct to give rise to any feeling of hostility to himself

individually. Four years ago, some farms were ejected and have never been occupied on

the borders of Armagh. Whenever an attempt was made to cultivate them, fellows came in

from Armagh and levelled the fences, etc. Drumacon was the name of one farm and the

others were adjoining it, to the number of four was said. There were four men, we have

just heard, with Mr. Bateson at the time of the murder and four others, they say, saw them

and we hope can identify the men, and there were other witnesses whose testimony will be

available. I got to 'Blayney in sufficient time to be present at the inquest also, but all of the

witnesses were not examined in open court, only such as were barely necessary to afford

the jury the means of deciding on a verdict. The police reported to me that there is rather a

feeling of exultation in the neighbourhood as to the result of the melancholy occurrence,

but this I will assert confidently, that there is not another district in this County where the

deed is not viewed as most atrocious, uncalled for and disgustingly disgraceful. A private

subscription list has been filled up by the magistrates present, offering a reward of ?500 for

the conviction of the offenders and ?200 for private information which will lead to

conviction. The amount, I believe, exceeded ?700 and will be increased to a far greater amount when circulated through the Counties of Monaghan, Armagh and Louth. The

meeting desired me to forward the enclosed resolution to your Excellency and to

recommend that a large reward should be offered by the Government also. More

information is coming in every moment and we hope with some chance of ultimate

discovery. The immediate allocation of the police from the Depot would most assuredly assist much in bringing witnesses forward. I desired the Sub-Inspector Bloxham to

institute instant enquiry as to what number of houses could be at present obtained for their

reception and to communicate the result of his investigation to the proper quarters. Four

4 Idem. 5 Seanchas Ard M hacha (1986).




of the Monaghan police having been sent to Co. Armagh to increase a station there, I

recommend that orders be sent them to return to the Monaghan constabulary, as no

longer required in Armagh . . . Rossmore, Lieutenant for the County of Monaghan.6

Patrick Howley sent Thomas Redington a report of the inquest and

meeting of magistrates, at Castleblayney, on 6 December, adding:?

. . . The majority of the magistrates then retired, when . . . French, Fitzmaurice, McWatty and Goulding, assisted by Sub-Inspectors Bloxham and Armstrong, proceeded to examine three witnesses brought by the latter gentleman from the Co. Armagh, who were looking on at the outrage. They were not examined for the present on oath and I handed them, with a woman named Anne Collins, to the charge of the constabulary. I think there is little

doubt, from the nature of their statements, that a clue will be had to the offenders, by acting with some prudence and caution. I examined also several other witnesses about the names of the three guilty persons . . . not up to the present disclosed. I beg to recommend a reward of ?200 being offered for the discovery of the perpetrators of this barbarous

outrage and a sum of ?100 be given for private information in first instance, also in relation to other measures that may be deemed desirable in this case, that I may be permitted to select two Sub-Constables, who know the locality in question, to go out in plain clothes to elicit information, in addition to a civilian. Ribbonism is fast spreading and the unsuccessful prosecutions in the neighbouring Counties of Armagh and Louth will give great confidence to the ill-disposed if some effective and successful measures are not

adopted in the present instance to bring home guilt to the parit?s concerned. The opinions of the medical gentleman were that Mr. Bateson had not been in any way injured by the

discharge of firearms . . ?

And, on 7 December, Patrick Howley informed Thomas Redington:?

... I am very happy to inform you that after the most searching scrutiny I made out the name of one of Mr. Bateson's assassins. Now the matter is to make him amenable . . . This district is now in a bad way, as there are neither principals or agents on the estates of Lords

Blayney or Templeton . . .8

Writing from Ross, Co. Wexford, on 7 December, William McClintock Spence, Clerk of Petty Sessions, Goresbridge, County Kilkenny, reminded the authorities of an earlier assassination attempt on Thomas Douglas Bateson and offered his help and advice:?

... I have the honor to inform you that I this day read in the Dublin papers an account of the murder of Thomas Douglas Bateson, Esq., in the County Monaghan, and I beg leave to state to you that Mr. Bateson was, about ten years ago, the agent of an estate in the

County Donegal, in the immediate vicinity of Buncrana, where a plot was discovered to assassinate him and, that while he was in the house of the Resident Magistrate whither he had gone for the purpose of swearing informations against the principals, his business was

made known to that person, who immediately absconded and went to North America. The determination of the persons to murder Mr. Bateson was made known by persons who had been Ribbonmen, and afterwards gave information against Ribbonmen, and attended at the different Assizes of Derry, Lifford, Omagh and Monaghan to give testimony before the Judges of Assize, and to which Assizes I was summoned to prove the handwriting of a

man named Patrick Doherty, then resident at Long Barracks, near Buncrana, who was said to be Master of Ribbon Lodges in the County Donegal. Not having been in that part


7 Idem. 8 Idem.



171

Rassan 'Model Farm', Corratanty, Castleblayney

Scene of Bateson murder, Killygola, Castleblayney



172 Seanchas Ard Mhacha

of the County Donegal for some years, I do not know whether the persons who then gave information are still in the country or not, but I am quite certain the plan to murder him

was entered into by persons in Buncrana, and that if followed up by some of the Government officers, would in all probability be brought to light. Sub-Inspector Matthews was at the time I mention stationed in Buncrana, was very active and intelligent and knows the business. I am sure if referred to he would confirm all I have stated and be able to let

you know more than I can on the subject. I believe he is now stationed in the County

Longford. The person who was made acquainted with the charge then making against him was a servant in the employment of the Rev. Mr. Maginn, who was Parish Priest at

Buncrana, and it was supposed that notice was sent to him from the magistrate's house. I am only actuated by the wish to give you every information in my power to discover the

perpetrators of the murder of Mr. Bateson. I am now a resident of Goresbridge, in the

County Kilkenny, of which district I am Clerk of Petty Sessions, and to which place I will return the latter end of this week. Should it please you to direct any directions to me here until next Friday, they will be promptly attended to . . .9

On 8 December, a meeting of the Privy Council, presided over by the Lord Lieutenant, was held at Dublin Castle to consider the resolutions of the Monaghan magistrates, after which Lord Rossmore received this

reply:?

. . . My Lord, I am directed by the Lord Lieutenant ... to inform your Lordship that the

Parishes of Muckno and Clontibret, in the County of Monaghan, and of Derrynoose and

Keady, in the County of Armagh, have been this day proclaimed . . . and that a

constabulary force of fifty men has been ordered to the former Parishes, to be stationed

therein, or as near to there as accommodation for the men can be found . . .10

Writing in Realities of Irish Life, William Steuart Trench, landagent of the Bath estate, in County Monaghan, described Thomas Douglas Bateson as \ . . well-educated and intelligent . . . kind-hearted, social and liberal . .

.', adding:?

. . . With a view to improve the agriculture in the district, he had formed the plan of

establishing a model agricultural farm, on which could be tried every new experiment, at

the cost of the landlord, and for the information and instruction of the tenants. On this farm the newest improvements in draining and subsoiling, green cropping, manuring, and

machinery of every kind were in daily use and operation. The whole was open to the

inspection of the public, whilst the tenants of the Templeton estate were specially invited to visit the works and derive what advantage they could from the improved systems of

husbandry which were there adopted. I have not any accurate knowledge of the details with reference to the process of taking up the land for the purpose of establishing this

model farm, but I was given to understand that it had been taken into the landlord's hands in the famine years of 1848 and 1849. Although a considerable portion of it had then lain

vacant, yet to form a compact farm lying well together and fit for the purposes designed, it was necessary to make several small changes and consolidations and to remove some of the tenants whose land lay contiguous to the model farm and was required for its

completion. These tenants were placed in other holdings on the estate, yet from these

changes, which were absolutely necessary for the establishment of the proposed design, some ill-will appears to have been created towards Mr. Bateson. Such was the account of the matter which I heard at the time from apparently reliable sources, and I have every reason to believe that the account was substantially true . . .11

9 Idem. 10 Idem. 11 Realities of Irish Life (Trench, 1869).




William Steuart Trench also wrote that '. . . Tenant Right, in the full northern acceptance of the term, had always prevailed over the

(Templeton) estate and the tenants were, for the most part, comfortable ,'12

However, Denis Carolan Rushe, in his Historical Sketches of Monaghan, painted a very different picture of conditions on the

Templeton estate ? and of its agent, Thomas Douglas Bateson:? The tenants on the estates over which Bateson was agent made several demands for abatements of rents. They were unable to pay the full rent

and, consequently, ejectments were extensively served. Several other,

things tended to make Bateson objectionable. It is said he rivalled Lord Leitrim in many of his ways, so that there was much personal enmity towards him . . .'13

Who was correct ?

William Steuart Trench's '. . . reliable sources . .

.' or Denis Carolan Rushe? Eight days after Thomas Douglas Bateson's

death, on 13 December, the editor of the Dundalk Democrat had this to

say about the Templeton estate and its late agent:?

. . . We do not wish to speak harshly of the dead, but the cause of truth compells us to say

that the Templeton estate was not managed with advantage to those who tilled and made it

productive. After the year 1845, Mr. Bateson entered on his duties as agent. He succeeded

a gentleman who, we are told, resigned the situation, sooner than act harshly against the

tenants. The estate is comprised chiefly of Mullyash Mountain, a cold, light and

indifferent soil which, in these days of free trade, the people would require to possess

rent-free, in order to enable them to live like human beings. This may be considered

extraordinary, but, nevertheless, it is a fact. But the unfortunate tenants had to pay a rent

which, we are told, ranged between 20s. and 25s. an acre. It may be easily imagined that

they were reduced to extreme poverty in the first years of the potato-blight, when farmers

living in more fertile districts suffered such privations. They were unable, for two or three

of those years, to pay much rent. Indeed, to prevent themselves from suffering hunger,

they were compelled to sustain their families with the little corn their farms produced. But

this state of things would not, of course, satisfy the landlord, and the agent was obliged to

commence harsh measures. There was no reduction made in the rent. The 20s. and 25s. an

acre were still charged against the tenants and not till last year, when an abatement of 3s.

in the ?1 were made, were they offered any reduction. In many instances, the extreme

course was taken and eviction succeeded eviction. One of the first who suffered in this way

was a Mr. David McBirney, who was turned out of his farm in 1845. At the time of the

eviction, Mr. Bateson committed an outrage on Mr. McBirney, for which, it is said, he was

summoned before the magistrates and fined. When Mr. McBirney left the country, the

land he held was converted into a model farm by Mr. Bateson and, since then, he has been

adding the holdings of evicted tenants to it. To cultivate his model farm, Mr. Bateson

employed about 60 of those living on the estate. The wages was Is. per day and, we are

told that the way in which he paid this money was by giving credit to the tenants for what

they had thus earned in the accounts against them for arrears of rent that accumulated in

the famine years. We are assured that while many of them were thus working on the model

farm, they were reduced to the greatest state of want and would have died from starvation,

were it not that some persons procured meal on credit for them, in Castleblayney. During

the last harvest, the crops of a number of the tenants, when cut, were carried off by Mr.

Bateson to his model farm, and our informant could not say whether a form of auction had

been gone through or not. But every grain found on some of the farms was carried away

12 Idem. 13 Historical Sketches of Monaghan (Rushe, 1894).




and the people left without a morsel of food. James Duffy, of Drumacon, a townland on

the estate, was peculiarly circumstanced. A decree was obtained against his person by Mr.

Bateson and, when his corn was cut, it was seized, auctioned and carried off, after which

an ejectment decree was obtained to evict him, but it was not enforced and he is yet in

possession, but reduced to a state of misery and want. We have received a list of some of

the families evicted from the Templeton estate, since Mr. Bateson became agent, and we

believe the following will be found pretty accurate: David McBirney, whose family consisted of 8 persons; William Gray, 14 in family; M. Caraher, 8; Peter Mackin, 6; Pat

Greenan, 4; Widow Caraher, 8; Patrick Caraher, 7; Peter Caraher, 11; Philip Caraher, 3; John Caraher, 6; Richard Mooney, 10; John Duffy, 4; John Devlin, 10; Bernard Meehan,

8; Pat O'Hare, 7; Michael O'Hare, 6; Hugh Caraher, 8; Pat Duffy, 4; John Halpenny, 4; Francis Hanratty, 5; James Largey, 6; William Boyd, 6; William McLoughlin, 6; John

McLoughlin, 5; Michael Hughes, 4; Jane Wilkes, 5; Mary Wilkes, 3; Walter McLoughlin, 6; John Tomany, 6; William Forbis, 7; John McCullagh, 4; Anthony Murphy, 8; John

Wright, 7; M. McArdle, 10. More could be added to this list of evicted tenants. Some of

them are now lying in their graves, some are in the workhouse and others have gone to

England and America. Far be it from us to put these evictions forward as an excuse, or in

any way justifying the barbarous murder of Mr. Bateson. Nothing of the kind could justify such a heinous crime, but we feel it our duty to lay a plain statement of facts before the

public and we have done so without fear, favour or affection . . .14

In the same edition of the Dundalk Democrat, the editor wrote a

blistering attack on the press, in particular the Newry Telegraph's coverage of the case and came out strongly in defence of the Templeton tenants:?

. . . We have written much this week on the subject of Mr. Bateson's awful murder. The

howling of the landlord press and of that base section of it which writes for payment and

villifies the people . . . has compelled us to do so in defence of justice. The landlord scribes

must not be permitted to misrepresent the facts and, to prevent them doing so, we are

obliged to occupy a considerable portion of our paper. Mr. Bateson has been barbarously murdered and the landlord press desires to fix a stain on an entire district of the country. The base and unprincipled Newry Telegraph, a paper which is a disgrace to the town in

which it is published, and several other corrupt and debased organs have proclaimed that a

conspiracy against the rights and owners of property exists throughout the parish in which

the murder took place. Now, a fouler falsehood never was written. On the contrary, the

district in which Mr. Bateson was murdered is one of the most peaceful in the British

Empire. For a number of years, only one serious outrage took place in it and that was an

attempt to take the life of an omnibus driver, which originated in a private quarrel and had

no connection whatever with anyone in the district where it occurred. On the authority of

Rev. Mr. McMeel, P.P. of Castleblayney, we state that there is not the least trace of

Ribbonism in that extensive parish and it could not exist there without his knowledge. What will the unprincipled Newry Telegraph say to this? What will the other villianous

papers that have traduced the people say after this declaration of ours which we make on

the best authority in the parish? Will they retract the lying statements they have made and

acknowledge that they have borne false witness against their neighbours? We have no

hope that they will do anything just. They live by falsehood. They earn their daily bread by

slandering the people and misrepresenting their conduct and we could not expect that

creatures so engaged would retract what they have said . . ,15

14 Dundalk Democrat, 13.12.1851. 15 Idem.



Dublin Castle, December 10, 1851. WHEREAS Thomas Douglas Bateson, Esq., J.P., was on

Thursday, the 4th instant. Barbarously Murdered at Kilhjgola, in the Parish of

Muckno, and County of Moaagban: AND WHEREAS a Reward of

one hundred pomds lias been offered by His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant for the Apprehension of i lie Person or Persons who Committed the said Murder :

AND WHEREAS any Person who shall knowingly receive into bis or her House or otherwise Harbour or Maintain the person or persons who Committed the said Murder, or shall conceal such person or persons, or Aid them in Escaping: or Endea? vouring to Escape from Justice becomes liable to be Transported for Life :

His.Excellency hereby offers a Reward of

FIFTY POUNDS to any Person or Persons, who. shall vithin six Months from the date hereof, ?ive such Information as shall lead to the

ARBEIST of any Person who has so Received, Harboured, Maintained, or Concealed, or As? sisted in Endeavouring to Escape from Justice, or who shall Receive, Harbour,

Maintain, or Conceal or Assist in Endeavouring to Escape from Justice, any of the Persons who Committed said Murder.

By His Excellency's Command, W. 3M. SOMER VIELE.

The above Reward "iriU be paid,

ON CONVICTION, i?jr Patrick C. Howtxy, Esq, the Resident tL^stnit? at Carrickmacross.

lj _Printed It GEORGE ?nU

JQljy QRIERSON, Printen to ttu Que?, Mem Kx~Uen? M.jcty.

Reward Notice. Courtesy ISPO, Outrage Papers, Monaghan, 1851




The report in the Dundalk Democrat ended:?

. . . We can only add that the parishes of Castleblayney and Clontibret have been

proclaimed and that Mr. Howley, Mr. Singleton and Mr. Anderson have been instructed

to give licence to the well-disposed to carry arms. There are 60 additional policemen stationed in the district and ?100 reward16 has been offered for such information as will

lead to the arrest of Mr. Bateson's murderers . . .17

On 19 December, two County Monaghan men ? Owen Kelly of

Lurganboy and Francis Kelly of Tullynagrove ? were arrested, charged

with Thomas Douglas Bateson's murder and committed to Monaghan Jail. Quoting the Armagh Gazette, the Dundalk Democrat reported:?

. . . When the constables arrived at the houses of the prisoners, they were engaged in

packing up as a preliminary to their departure for America on the next day. The men

seemed terrified at the approach of the police and their mother fainted. We understand

that on the evening of the murder four young men were proceeding on a cart from

Castleblayney to Keady and, at a few yards above the spot where the murder was

perpetrated, saw Mr. Bateson and three men walking together. Shortly afterwards, they heard a shot and saw the three men beating Mr. Bateson. Two of the young men identify one of the prisoners and one, it is said, identifies the other . . .18

Thomas Douglas Bateson was a native of Derry, so it is not surprising that his murder had repercussions there. On Christmas Eve, a public

meeting, presided over by J. G. Millar, the Mayor of the city, was held in the Corporation Hall, at which the following resolutions were

adopted:?

First resolution, moved by the Lord Bishop of Derry, seconded by the Rev. William

McClure : That this meeting desires to express its indignant abhorrence at the atrocious

murder recently committed in the County of Monaghan upon the person of our respected and esteemed fellow-townsman, the late lamented Thomas Douglas Bateson, Esq.

Second resolution, moved by Sir Robert A. Ferguson, seconded by the Rev. Dr.

Denham : That the Chairman be requested to convey to Sir Robert Bateson, and through him to the deceased gentleman's other relatives the deep sympathy so generally felt for

them by all classes of this community, under their melancholy bereavement and affliction.

Third resolution, moved by Major Scott, seconded by Patrick Gifmour, Esq. : That it is a subject requiring the immediate consideration of Parliament whether the criminal law

may not be advantageously amended with the view of ensuring the more certain conviction

of parties conspiring to commit similar outrages, and that the Mayor be requested to

forward a copy of these resolutions to his Excellency, the Lord Lieutenant.

Fourth resolution, moved by James Murray, Esq., seconded by William Haslett, Esq. :

That believing the murder of the late Mr. Bateson to have been the result of a deep laid and organised conspiracy against life and property, and that the reward offered by

Government is inadequate to induce parties to come forward and give information, owing to the system of intimidation and terror which exists in that part of the country, we

approve of a subscription list being forthwith opened for the purpose of increasing the amount already offered for such information as will lead to the conviction of the

murderers, and that the following gentlemen be requested to act as a committee for the

16 See Reward Notice. 17 Dundalk Democrat, 13.12.1851. 18 Dundalk Democrat, 20.12.1851.




purpose of carrying this resolution into immediate operation . . . J. G. Millar, Mayor &

Chairman of the Meeting.19

When forwarding a copy of the resolutions to the Lord Lieutenant on

26 December, J. G. Millar wrote, '. . . In pursuance of the 4th

resolution, a sum of nearly ?3000 was subscribed before the meeting

separated . . .'.20

Patrick Howley continued to keep Thomas Redington informed of events in the Castleblayney district and, on 12 January 1852, he

wrote:?

. . . On last night, I went out with the Sub-Inspector and a party of constabulary

throughout that portion of Lord Templeton's estate, within four miles of this town. I

roused up some of the tenants off their beds and they admitted that a subscription was

making up to defend the prisoners accused of Mr. Bateson's murder, to which they were

contributing through fear. I went to the house of a man named William McArdle whom I

refused a few days ago a licence to have arms. He is the chief agent and treasurer of the

fund. In his house, we found a great variety of papers ? a notice to quit signed by Mr.

Bateson, a copy of an ejectment brought against him for the non-payment of rent, letters

and resolutions to Lord Templeton complaining of how his tenants were oppressed, the

defence of those very two prisoners who are now in jail when tried at the last Summer

Assizes for a Whiteboy outrage, briefing their case for counsel, a number of Tenant Right

newspapers and subscription lists. This man appeared to be a regular village lawyer and an

?(?) in the neighbourhood. He was much startled by our visit but nothing was found for

which he could be prosecuted. It is said that Mr. Swanzey, who is both solicitor and

coroner, has received twenty guineas to defend the prisoners. He is the brother of the

Sub-Sheriff. I barely credit the statement but give it as related to me by one of the police. The constabulary were out today protecting the Barony Constable. Some of the tax was

paid. The remainder is promised next Wednesday. No symptom of opposition . . .21

Embarrassed by its failure to obtain convictions in the McEnteggart, Coulter, Mauleverer, Clarkes, McClean and several other agrarian murder cases,22 the Government, according to William Steuart Trench, \ . . resolved to issue a Special Commission ... to try the murderers of

Mr. Bateson, and in the hope of striking terror into the Ribbon

Confederacy by a severe and immediate example . . .\23 Denis Carolan

Rushe put it more bluntly. He wrote '. . . The Government were

determined to hang someone, so they arrested the brothers24 Kelly, and

proceeded to make up a case against them, with the full determination

of hanging them. The local landlords, through the press and through the

Castle officials, worked up a scare and induced the Government to issue a Special Commission . . .\25

A Special Commission, according to William Steuart Trench, was '. . .


20 Idem. 21

ISPO, Outrage Papers, Monaghan, 1852. 22 Seanchas Ard Mhacha (1979-1987) 23 Realities of Irish Life (Trench). 24 Cousins. 25 Historical Sketches of Monaghan (Rushe).




a kind of emergency assize, assembled for the purpose of trying cases of a peculiar nature, which are either so numerous or so pressing that they cannot be allowed to wait for the ordinary assizes (and) is always a

serious affair. The gentry and magistrates are summoned from their

ordinary avocations to act as grand jurors and jurors. A heavy expense is entailed on the county and the Commission is never issued unless the

Government have a good reason to calculate upon some important convictions . . .\26

A measure of the hard line adopted by the authorities in the Bateson case may be gauged from the contents of a letter written on 20 January by Thomas Mayne, the Governor of Monaghan Jail, to William

Somerville, the Chief Secretary:?

... On the 7th inst., I received an order from P. C. Bowley, Esq., R.M., to prevent Francis or Owen Kelly from cutting their hair, changing their clothes or otherwise altering their appearance from such as it was on their committal to gaol. These men are charged

with the murder of Mr. Bateson and they have applied to me to be permitted to have a

change of clothing for their trial . . . May I request that you will inform me whether their

request shall be complied with . . ,27

A memo written on Thomas Mayne's letter and signed by John

Hatchell, the Attorney-General, read, '. . . Mr. Howley's directions are

proper and should be adhered to . . .\28 On 27 January 1852, the Special Commission to try Owen and Francis

Kelly for the murder of Thomas Douglas Bateson opened in Monaghan Courthouse. The Dundalk Democrat reported:?

. . . The judges, Chief Justice Blackburn and Chief Justice Monahan, together with the

Crown lawyers, arrived on the previous day, guarded by a strong military force consisting of a number of the First Dragoon Guards and a company of the Thirty First Regiment stationed in Monaghan. The judges, it appeared, apprehended some danger along the line

of railway from Dundalk to Castleblayney, in consequence of a report spread abroad by malicious alarmists, and a number of policemen were placed on the railroad at short

distances from each, lest an attempt might be made to turn up the rails and upset the train.

However, the judges arrived safe without an attack having been made and the wicked

alarmists have turned out to be false prophets . . .29

Among the many people travelling to Monaghan on 26 January was

William Steuart Trench who had been summoned as a Grand Juror on

the Special Commission. Later, he wrote a graphic, if somewhat

sensational, account of his journey from Carrickmacross:?

... I shall not readily forget our starting on the journey from Carrickmacross to

Monaghan. The latter is the county town and is situated about twenty Irish miles from the

former. We hired a 'long car' ? that is, an outside car on four wheels, long enough to hold

26 Realities of Irish Life (Trench). 27

ISP?, Outrage Papers, Monaghan, 1852. 28 Idem. 29 Dundalk Democrat, 31.1.1852.




several persons on each side and drawn by two horses. Rumours of the wildest nature were

everywhere afloat ? that we should be attacked by a large body of Ribbonmen on our

way, that our progress would be interrupted in Castleblayney, etc. I confess I scarcely believed all this. The threatened attack was of too open a nature for Ribbonmen. All

parties, however, were so much excited that there was no saying what might happen and

we determined to prepare for the worst. Our pistols and guns were accordingly fresh

cleaned and loaded. One or two of my young friends proposed to accompany us on the

car, as they said, 'to see the fun'. Two sub-constables were told off to attend us as far as

Castleblayney and two mounted policemen, fully equipped, were ordered to ride beside us

and, in this state of preparation for war, we started from Carrickmacross. There is a

winding pass on the way between Carrickmacross and Castleblayney, with high banks and

rocks on either side, which is singularly suited for an attack. We used to call is the 'Kyber Pass', from the peculiar manner which those passing through it on the road were in the

power of an enemy on the rocks above. Through this pass we rode slowly, our pistols cocked and our double-barrelled guns resting on our knees. All, however, went off quietly and we arrived at Monaghan without any incident of importance . . .30

At 1 o'clock on the following day, the two judges and several Crown

lawyers entered the courthouse, the Clerk of the Crown read the Special Commission and, the Grand Jury having been sworn in, Judge Blackburn gave his opening address:?

... In common with all others who have the tranquility of the country at heart, I deeply lament that there is any necessity for your being called together, but of the existence o?

that necessity I cannot for one moment entertain a doubt. It is unfortunately true that a

large number of this, and of the Counties of Louth and Armagh, are pervaded by a

mischievious association ? that of Ribbonism. It pervades these districts in all its horrors .

. . There is one case which most undoubtedly will be submitted to you, a case which,

taking into consideration all the circumstances attending it, is one of the very gravest

importance. There will come two persons before you charged with the murder of the late

Mr. Bateson. I am desirous of impressing upon you the necessity of being satisfied with the

evidence of identification with reference to the parties charged before you find a true bill. . . The only part of this particular case upon which it is possible to entertain any doubt is

that which relates to the identity of the parties charged as those who perpertrated the

crime. In this latter respect, I am desirous to impress upon you a caution which you have

as jurors often heard, namely, that you are not to find true bills except in such'

circumstances and upon such evidence as will justify them ... If a true bill is found when

the evidence is not sufficient, there is a great injustice done to the person put on trial, if he

is innocent. And, if he is guilty, no matter what evidence may subsequently turn up, he

cannot again be made answer the charge . . . Whether Mr. Bateson's murder was actuated

by private and individual hatred, or whether assassins were employed to execute the

sentence of death pronounced by the Ribbon Society, is not, perhaps, a matter which it is

important to be informed. But there is one thing clear. These men, however actuated, never would have perpetrated the offence unless they were assured of that protection and

support and connivance in crime which the Ribbon Society assures to all criminals, no

matter how atrocious the offence they perpetate. There is no doubt in my mind that this

particular crime was committed by parties who trusted for protection to that organisation. It took place on a public highway, in the broad daylight, within a short distance of a

populous village, at a place where people were passing and re-passing every minute,

coming to the town and going to the fields, and yet there was no hand lifted, no voice

raised, no efforts made to secure the murderers. If there were no other fact or

circumstance but that one, it would be sufficient to show the existence of a widespread

system of crime and intimidation . . . But criminal, highly criminal, as are the parties

30 Realities of Irish Life (Trench).




immediately connected with this murderous and mischievious association, there are others

who, although not quite so amenable were even still more mischievious than those who

performed the deed. I mean those persons and classes of persons who, by their speeches,

publications and otherwise palliate, extenuate and even justify crimes, the commission of

which is not only a disgrace to our nature and to our national character, but a downright breach of all the laws of God and man . . .31

The Grand Jury then retired and, after an absence of about two-and-a-half hours, returned true bills against Owen and Francis

Kelly for the murder of Thomas Douglas Bateson. The prisoners '. . .

young men about 26 years of age . . .',32 were then charged by the Clerk of the Crown and they both pleaded 'not guilty'.33 The court then

adjourned until the following day. At 10 o'clock on 28 January, the Kelly cousins stood in the dock to

take their trial.34 According to the Dundalk Democrat's correspondent, they were '. . . young men and exhibited nothing of that ferocity which, it is said, stamps the features and characterises the demeanour of

persons guilty of the horrible crime of taking away the life of a

fellow-creature. They appeared calm and collected and seemed to be

inspired with confidence and hope . . . The court was crowded to excess, a large portion of those present being persons who had been summoned to attend as jurors, and I may here observe that those were gentlemen

who usually serve as Grand Jurors and who did not at all belong to the class from which petty jurors are generally taken . . .'.

The Crown was represented by John Hatchell, the Attorney-General, Sir Thomas Staples, Mr O Hagan and Mr Kernan, and the prisoners were represented by Isaac Butt and Samuel Ferguson. The following jury '. . . consisting of eleven Protestants and one Catholic and nearly all landlords' agents or those who were supposed to sympathise with them . . .' was sworn in to try Francis Kelly's case, Owen Kelly having been

asked '. . . to stand back for the present . . .' : Richard Allen Minnett, foreman; John Moorehead; David Smyth; Hubert Prendergast Kernan;

Humphrey Jones; John Goudy; Henry Rodgers; Alan Dudgeon; William Millar Ryan; James Ross; Andrew Clarke; and Joseph Wright. The prisoner, '. . . in a firm voice pleaded "not guilty"

. . .'.

William Steuart Trench, who had been a Grand Juror at the

Monaghan Special Commission, later wrote about a conversation he

allegedly had with a colleague at the opening of Francis Kelly's trial, '. . . "There will be no conviction", remarked a Grand Juror to me. "Why

not?", I asked. "Because", he replied, "there is a man on that jury who will never find those men guilty". "I trust that is not so ? that is, if their

guiltcan be substantiated". "There will be no conviction", he replied . ' 35

31 Dundalk Democrat, 31.1.1852. 32 Idem. 33 Idem. 34 Account based on Dundalk Democrat report, 31.1.1852. 35 Realities of Irish Life (Trench).




Twenty-five Crown witnesses were examined, including Robert Mills and John Casey, who identified Francis Kelly as being one of the three

men they had seen attacking Thomas Douglas Bateson. Robert Mills was examined by John Hatchell. He said:?

... I am fifteen years of age. I live at Keady when I am at home. My father is a butcher. I

recollect the day Mr. Bateson was killed. I remember on that morning leaving Keady for

Castleblayney, in company with James Sherry. I had a horse and cart with me for the

purpose of carrying the fat which I was going to sell to William Hamilton of Castleblayney. On my way home, about 4 o'clock, I stopped at the house of a person named James

McArdle, a quarter of a mile from Castleblayney. My object in stopping was to take up a

girl who was staying there and who, it was arranged, should get up with us. Young McArdle came out and told me that the girl would not go out that evening and he gave us

some whiskey, about half a glass each. We then set out again and, when we came as far as

Mr. Hurst's gate, we overtook two boys whom we took into the cart. We then went on to

Collins's house, where we met three men and Mr. Bateson. There was one man at each

side of him and another was walking behind him. I saw the faces of the men who were with

him . . .

John Hatchell: 'Now look at the dock and tell me do you see there any of the men whom

you saw with Mr. Bateson on that occasion?'.

Robert Mills, pointing to the prisoner: 'Yes, that man was one of them'.

The examination of Robert Mills then continued. He said:?

. . . After we passed on a little, we heard a pistol shot. We all turned, thinking it was a dog that was shot, and James Sherry cried out: 'Mr. Bateson is shot. Come on, or we will be

killed'. When we looked back, we saw three men beating Mr. Bateson into the shough . . .

Judge: 'Are you sure they were the same three men whom you saw just before with Mr.

Bateson?'.

Robert Mills: T am, by Lord. They were not out of my sight all the time. I heard Mr.

Bateson cry "Oh, oh".'

Juror: 'How do you know it was Mr. Bateson? Did you ever see him before?'.

Robert Mills: 'No, but James Sherry told me who he was'.

The examination of Robert Mills then continued. He said:?

. . . The prisoner, I think, wore a frieze coat and a straw hat on that occasion. We then went up to the tanyard hill, from where we could see three men following us. They were

running and I cannot say where they went, as I soon lost sight of them. We were only about ten perches from the place where Mr. Bateson was murdered when we heard the shot . . .

To a juror: T pointed out the prisoner in the bridewell with as much facility as I have

done today. I cannot say whether he wore the same clothes then as he now has on him'.

Cross-examined by Isaac Butt, Robert Mills replied:?

... I was greatly frightened when I heard the shot and whipped on the horse for fear I

would be killed ... I never, to my knowledge, saw the prisoner before the day Mr.

Bateson was murdered. I never saw the other two men either ... I would not be able to

identify them. I pointed out the prisoner to Mr. Howley at the bridewell, who showed me

three men in the yard and asked me if any of them was of the party I saw beating Mr. Bateson. I did not look at the other two men I saw in the yard as closely as I did at the

prisoner . . .




John Casey was examined by Sir Thomas Staples. He said:?

'. . . I am eighteen years of age. I lived in Keady in December last. I remember the day Mr. Bateson was killed. I was gathering rags that day along with another boy. We met

Mills and Sherry coming in a cart from Castleblayney and, being tired, we turned back and

got up into the cart . . . When we passed Collins's house, we saw three men in company with Mr. Bateson going towards Castleblayney. We gave a cheer for Keady and the three men looked round . . .'

Sir Thomas Staples: 'Do you see any of these men here now?'.

At this stage, according to the Dundalk Democrat's correspondent, '. . . the witness turned round and remained silent for a considerable time

Sir Thomas Staples: 'Look into the dock and tell me do you see any of them there?'.

Isaac Butt: 'My Lord, I object to this mode of identifying the prisoner'. John Hatchell: 'He did not look into the dock and, therefore, it was necessary to direct

his attention to it'.

John Casey then looked into the dock and, identifying the prisoner, said: T only see one of them there . . .'.

John Casey's rag-gathering companion, Thomas Green, admitted on cross-examination :?

'. . . When we heard the shot, we had some conversation about it and Casey remarked that some one was shot and that there would be a reward which some one would be the better of. . .'.

At this stage, Isaac Butt addressed the court, saying: '. . . This statement about a reward has come upon me wholly by surprise.

Otherwise, I would have questioned the other witnesses on the point. Under these circumstances, I would ask the court to allow me to cross-examine Casey again . . .'. But John Hatchell objected, saying that such a proceeding would be highly irregular and his objection was sustained.

During the course of the trial, the Crown attempted to prove that Francis Kelly's shoes matched one of three sets of footprints allegedly made by Thomas Bateson's murderers as they fled from the scene of the crime through a stubble field. However, in their cross-examinations, Isaac Butt and Samuel Ferguson succeeded in casting grave doubts on the validity of the method used by the police in making the comparison between the shoes and the footprints. Addressing the jury on behalf of the prisoner, Isaac Butt said:?

... I feel extreme satisfaction that there is empanelled in that jury-box a jury of such high rank, and occupying such a position, that no one can for a moment suppose that there could exist among them any approach to sympathy with agrarian crime and combinations

and, if they will, as I am confident they must, return a verdict of acquittal, it will be

impossible for any man to say that a County Monaghan jury were desirous to show any indulgence to agrarian crime. On the other hand, it will furnish proof to demonstration

that, even in times of alarm and excitement, a jury from that county did not shrink from




performing their duty, and from doing impartial justice between the Crown and the

accused ... I do not complain of anything which has been urged by the learned

Attorney-General about the necessity of issuing a Special Commission. On that point, I

had not the slightest power to decide, but this remark I have a right to make, namely, that

had the Commission not been so speedily issued, it might be that there would have been

other testimony to offer than was afforded in identification by a passing glance, or in the

fitting of a shoe to tracks in a boggy field, three weeks after they were alleged to have been

imprinted there. As it is, the whole case turns upon a point of identification, and that

identification is alleged to have taken place by two witnesses meeting men casually on the

road. If a man entered your house at night, you might remember his face again. If

attention was fixed on a countenance, it might be remembered again, but this is not the case. Could any of you declare that you would be able to answer to any one of those

persons whom you met coming into that town, not having reason to survey them with care

and caution, yet it is sought to establish an identification here from the fact that the person turned hurriedly round when a cheer was given for Keady? Who would be safe, if human

life were to be sacrificed upon evidence caught upon a hasty glance? The opportunity of

observation was utterly insufficient for identification here and you cannot find a verdict for

the Crown, unless upon clear and satisfactory grounds. You cannot bring in a verdict upon

suspicions that might be lurking in the mind. The evidence touching the footprints is of far too trivial a character to trouble you with. The manner of examining them was ridiculous.

The shoes of the country people are very much alike and no reliance can be placed on

evidence where two or three persons were engaged in pressing a shoe in footprints found

in a field . . . There has been reference made to the existence of a Ribbon conspiracy.

Nothing can be better known than, when a crime is to be perpetrated, it is usual to bring persons from a distance to commit it. It is not at all probable that the prisoner, who was

known to all who lived there, would attempt such a murder. It is easy to conceive that

strangers would come from a distance to commit it, but the supposition that a resident of

the neighbourhood would do it under the expectation of escaping with impunity is not

tenable. The prisoner was arrested five days after the murder, in his mother's house. He

made no attempt to escape, although the fact of those persons being arrested, who were

able to give evidence against him, must have been known to him. There were no arms

found in his house or anything to indicate guilt . . . When brought before the magistrate,

he at once accounted for the manner in which he had spent his day . . .

Having thrown out

for your consideration these observations, I must repeat that, before you can find a verdict

against the prisoner, you must be satisfied that he was the murderer of Mr. Bateson . . .

Confident that you will fearlessly discharge your duty to your country, I call upon you, on

your oaths, for a verdict . . .

Seven defence witnesses were examined, including Rose Grimes and Jane Hill whose evidence gave Francis Kelly an alibi. Rose Grimes was

examined by Samuel Ferguson. She said:?

... I live in Tullynagrove. I know Francis and Owen Kelly well, to speak to them as well as

by sight. I don't remember what day it was Mr. Bateson was murdered but it was on a

Thursday. I was in Castleblayney with flowering (sic) that day. When I came near to Rev. Mr. Hurst's gate, I heard a shot... I went on, after hearing the shot, past the gate. I then

saw three men beating another one. I was sufficiently near them to see them plainly. I

observed their faces. They told me twice to go back, and if I did not, they would give me

the same sauce. The whole three spoke to me. They said it was no place for me. I turned on my step and went back towards Castleblayney. I looked back and heard a voice saying, 'You may take all I have, only save my life' ... I went on home afterwards. I see the

prisoner, Francis Kelly. Neither he nor his brother Owen was there . . .

Cross-examined by John Hatchell, Rose Grimes replied:?

... I looked at the three men sharply for the purpose of seeing whether I knew them. I did




not. If Francis Kelly had been among them, I think I should have informed the police of

the fact . . .

During her examination, Jane Hill said:?

... I went to Bryan Murphy's that day to get butter . . . Francis Kelly was there. I was

there fully two hours and did not leave until it was dark. The prisoner was in the house the

whole time I remained. He was sitting at the fire, smoking and passing jests with the girls .

The other five defence witnesses corroborated Rose Grimes's and Jane Hill's evidence on various points, after which one of the judges charged the jury, who retired to consider their verdict. Four hours later, however, they announced that they had not agreed and the court directed that they should be locked up for the night.

At 9 o'clock on the morning of 30 January ? the third day of the trial

? '. . . the judges took their seat . . . and the jury having been called into their box, the foreman said there was no likelihood of their

agreeing. The Chief Justice told them they should retire, which they accordingly did, and the prisoner was removed. At 11 o'clock, the

judges again entered the court, when the jury was called out. The foreman said they had not been able to agree to come to an agreement.

The Chief Justice told them to retire. The foreman stated that the jury was in such a state that they were unable to do anything and one of them was seriously indisposed. Mr. Irwin was sent for to examine the jury and he returned to court, stating that Mr. Smyth's life would be in danger by any further confinement. The jury were then discharged. The Chief

Justice, addressing the Attorney-General, asked what course the Crown now intended to pursue. The Attorney-General replied that, next

morning, he would put the same prisoner on his trial for the murder of Mr. Bateson . . .'.

In the first edition of Realities of Irish Life, William Steuart Trench,

referring to the jury in Francis Kelly's first trial, wrote: '. . . It was not of course openly announced, but all in court seemed fully to understand that eleven were for conviction and one only for an acquittal

. . ,'.36

According to Denis Carolan Rushe, Trench alleged this '. . .for the

purpose of blackening his Catholic fellow-countrymen . . .', and added: \ . . This lie was nailed by Mr. Butt and Trench afterwards had, however reluctantly, to perform that most disagreeable, but oftimes

necessary, dietic feat, viz., 'swallow the leek', in this matter. The fact was that nine were for acquittal, viz., Richard Allen Minnet, John

Moorehead, David Smyth, Hubert Prendergast Kernan, Humphrey Jones, John Goudy, Alan Dudgeon, William Millar Ryan and Andrew

Clarke . . .'.37

36 Historical Sketches of Monaghan (Rushe). 37 Idem.




Nearly a century and a half have circled by since these events. It would be presumptious of us to pass judgement on William Steuart Trench's motives. In all fairness to him, we must state that he also wrote the following in Realities of Irish Life:?

... I watched the trial closely as it went on and it struck me that when the witnesses were

called on to identify the prisoners, and to put the long white wand or rod of the crier upon the head of each, there was much uncertainty and hesitation in their manner, and so strong

was this impression, that I said to one of the Grand Jurors who was near to me at the time ? T don't like the manner in which the witnesses identified the prisoners. It was by no

means satisfactory to my mind, and I should be sorry to be one of the petty jury, to give a

verdict in such a case' . . .38

On 31 January, Francis Kelly was again put on trial,39 before an '. . .

exclusively Protestant. . .'jury, for the murder of Thomas Bateson. The second trial followed a similar pattern to that of the first and, at 1.15

p.m. on 24 February, the jury retired to consider their verdict. About two hours later, the Dundalk Democrat reported, '. . . the foreman stated . . . that they had not agreed, nor was there any likelihood of an

agreement . . .'. At 9 a.m. 3 February, the jury was again called into court and again the foreman's reply was that '. . . they had not agreed . .

.'. This time, according to Denis Carolan Rushe, the jurors were \ . .

equally divided . . .'.40 Later that day, two of them became ill and, as there was no prospect of the jury agreeing to a verdict, they were

discharged. Commenting on the Monaghan Special Commission, the editor of the Dundalk Democrat wrote:?

. . . The Commission issued by our sovereign lady, the Queen, for the trial of several

parties accused of murder and other crimes in the Co. Monaghan, has terminated. The

judges, the law officers and sheriff, the Grand and petty jurors, the solicitors, counsel, court crier, bailiffs and the crowd of spectators have gone to their homes, the army to their

barracks and the police and police officers to their respective stations, and the town of

Monaghan has resumed its usual appearance. Francis Kelly, who stood in the dock for

eight days, is again consigned to the jail, having been given in charge to two juries who did not agree as to his guilt or innocence. Of the manner in which the judges performed their arduous duties, there can be no second opinion. There was no desire visible on the bench to have life sacrificed on evidence little better than suspicion. The Protestant judge was

dignified and impartial, the Catholic judge, mild, merciful and careful that no injustice should be inflicted on the accused. With the Crown lawyers we have no fault to find except that, in empanelling the second jury, every Catholic was ordered to stand by. What conclusion are we to come to respecting this insane and insulting practice? Is it never to

have an end in Ireland? And, day after day, are we to witness men as honest and

trustworthy as any county could produce, summoned as jurors, and then told in the

presence of their neighbours to stand by, or, in other words, that they could not be

confided in to find a verdict according to the evidence? In this casting them aside, do not

the Crown lawyers brand them with being regardless of the obligations of an oath? ... It is no wonder that there is such disaffection in Ireland, when injustice like this is done to the creed of nine-tenths of the population. It would be more dignified to exclude Catholic

38 Realities of Irish Life (Trench). 39 Account ?based on Dundalk Democrat report, 7.2.1852. 40 Historical Sketches of Monaghan (Rushe).




jurors from the panel altogether than to treat them in this insulting manner and, as long as

the heinious practice continued, so long will the administration of justice in Ireland be

looked upon with distrust and suspicion. It is preferring one creed to another. It is

branding the Catholic with inferiority and carrying Protestant ascendancy to the most

sacred place in the courts of justice, the jury box. In that place, no distinctions of creed

should be known. It should be pre-eminently distinguished for the absence of all sectarian

feeling, and profound reverence for the obligations of an oath the only passport to its' seats. While any other considerations influence Crown lawyers in empanelling juries, the

law and its administration will be unsatisfactory to the great bulk of the population and, for the sake of peace and order, the practice should be discontinued. But Protestant as the

second jury was, they did not agree respecting the guilt or innocence of the prisoner . . .41

The editor of the Dundalk Democrat then made a bitter attack on the

Newry Telegraph and continued:?

... It is said that ten of the first jury who tried Francis Kelly were for a conviction. We have not heard how the second jury was divided, nor do we seek to know it. But after the evidence of some of the new witnesses brought forward on Saturday by the Crown, after the splendid speech of Mr. Butt on Monday and the charge of Chief Justice Monahan, it

was thought that the jury would have no difficulty in returning a verdict of acquittal. But with those who refused to agree to such a verdict, we find no fault because they may have

placed confidence in the testimony of Mills and Casey. Others would not believe them at all and argued that, as they only glanced for a moment at Mr. Bateson and the three men

who were walking with him, and being more or less excited at that moment . . ., their identification of the prisoner could not be relied on ... It will be observed that Mr. Watt

expressed himself very strongly on the conduct of Mr. Howley, the stipendiary magistrate. How far Mr. Howley deserves such censure as was pronounced upon him by the learned

counsel, we cannot pretend to say, but one thing is certain ? the Special Commission has cost ?3000 or ?4000 which, if mistake not, the farmers of Monaghan will have to pay. The

magistrates should be very certain before advising the issuing of a Special Commission and

incurring enormous expense that they have credible and reliable evidence against the accused parties. The evidence of two lads, with the prospect of a large reward before

them, may have made Mr. Howley confident of a conviction, but it was a perilous experiment which we hope never to see repeated . . . We wish the Government were as anxious to remove the cause of crime as they are to punish offenders. But, unfortunately, such is not the case. During the whole course of the Commission, no one in authority breathed a single word of sympathy for the suffering and oppressed people. The Commission is now at an end and the cause of outrage remains as it was before it was

issued. Neither the judges nor the Crown lawyers asked why those awful and detestable murders were committed or what had led to such a state of things

. . . The Government should have ascertained this and applied a remedy. They should have enquired minutely into the cause of agrarian crime and, having found it, measures should be applied to remove so formidable an evil. But nothing of the kind has been done and landlords and tenants are left to themselves to decide the difference between them. A few policemen are scattered here and there through the country, fresh expense is heaped on the unfortunate farmer to make him less able to pay rack-rent than he was before. Landlord law is

permitted by the Government to have full sway ... It is unjust Landlordism and the exaction of enormous rack-rents that have driven the people to commit outrage. Knowing this, the Government should shield the farmers from aggression and secure them from

having nearly all the fruits of their toil grasped by landlords . . . On the whole, the Government have won no laurels by their Special Commission. It has left Monaghan as it found it, and the progress of the judges and law officers there and back to Dublin reminds

41 Dundalk Democrat, 7.2.1852.




one of the feat of the king of France who 'with 40000 men marched up the hill and then

marched down again' . . ,42

On 26 February 1852, the people of the parish of Muckno sent the

following communications to the editor of the Dundalk Democrat:?

. . . Dear Sir, I send you a copy of a petition forwarded from this parish for presentation to

Parliafhent, relative to the crimes that have lately been perpetrated in the vicinity of this

locality. I wish the Government would send a Commission of impartial men to the scene of these crimes to ascertain the cause of them. I am certain, as of my existence, that they

would find the allegations contained in this petition founded in fact. And why should they not do so, if they really wish to repress crime and establish peace? Does it not look as if

they did not desire the discontinuance of these deeds when the causes of them are left untouched? Or, if it be true, as the Government organs would make us believe, that there is a huge Ribbon conspiracy for the indiscriminate murder of landlords, agents, bailiffs, etc., why is not that brought out? Why not trace it from one authority to anott?er till they come to the source, to the real conspirators, and hang them up at once, according to the

imported system likely to be soon in use under the new legal advisers of the Crown, without any jury at all. Apropos of juries : all the statements that have appeared relative to the state of the juries in the case of Kelly at the late Special Commission are most incorrect. Of the first jury, ten were for acquittal. Of the second, and it was as carefully selected for the occasion as could be desired, seven were for the prisoner. The truth is, you

would not hang a decent dog on the evidence. Pardon this intrusion on your valuable time, but believe me to be sincerely yours . . .43

The undersigned petition of the inhabitants of the parish of Muckno, Castleblayney, Co.

Monaghan, Ireland, humbly showeth that your petitioners have read with astonishment the exaggerated reports published in the newspapers and dwelt upon at considerable

length in the House of Commons of the disturbed state and lawless condition of this

neighbourhood. That, with the exception of the deplorable murder of the late Mr. Bateson which your petitioners utterly abhor and reprobate, and of which they most

solemnly aver they knew neither act nor part, this locality was never tarnished with the commission of any crime of a serious nature. That, in the opinion of your petitioners, this lamented murder together with crimes of a similar nature throughout the country, are the

consequence of exorbitantly high rents and the evictions and exterminations that follow

when, from altered circumstances, those rents became impossible to be paid. That they are far from palliating or justifying those horrid deeds of revenge. They abhor them as the

most flagrant violation of the ordinance of the Almighty, and subversive of the tenets of their religion which teaches them that no amount of suffering can justify the commission of

crime, yet they cannot close their eyes to the fact that where those acts are perpetrated, there oppression and extermination are found to have preceded. Since the days of the

Gracchi, transactions in land have been marked with blood. That the property with which the late unfortunate gentleman, Mr. Bateson, was connected as agent was let at an

exorbitantly high rate, the letting of twenty years ago. That even supposing those rents to have been then equitable, your petitioners submit the changes which have since

supervened, the Free Trade measures, the six years famine, the utter destruction of the chief commodity of their support, have rendered those rents impossible to be paid. The literal truth is that in most cases, if the entire of what grows on the land were sold, it would

scarcely pay the fixed rents, without leaving a farthing behind for the support of the

land-holders, his family and the payment of other heavy taxes that are charged on the land. When the tenants are thus unable to pay, in other words, to do what is impossible, they are immediately turned out of their holdings, to go to the poorhouse, to die on the roads or, what is worse, to meditate revenge on what they believe the immediate cause of their misery. That to this system, and not to Orangeism or Ribbonism, are to be ascribed

42 Dundalk Democrat, 28.2.1852. 43 Idem.




the crimes that disgrace our country, is the conviction of your petitioners. That your

petitioners regret to observe the efforts that have been everywhere made to make it

appear that these murders are the work of Ribbon conspiracies, and by implication, of

Catholics, those societies being supposed to consist solely of the members of that religion. This allegation your petitioners utterly disbelieve, and are prepared to the denial of, in

relation at least to this locality. There is no Ribbon Society, nor has there been for a length of time, in the parish where the murder of Mr. Bateson took place. Such societies, when in

existence here, were got up in antagonism to Orangeism, a sort of defence against the

suppression of that association. When Orangeism was put down, Ribbonism disappeared. Instances in the knowing of your petitioners of attempts having been made on the lives of

agents, in localities where few or no Catholics lived, of threatening notices having been

traced, to the satisfaction of the authorities, to persons not Catholics, irrefragably prove the folly or malice of attributing those atrocities to sect, creed or politics. Your petitioners then implore your honourable House to take these allegations of the petitioners into your serious consideration and, as they believe the imposition of rents that cannot be paid and

consequent evictions to be the cause of those agrarian crimes, they beg you at least to remove the power to oppress by giving legal sanction to the measure introduced into Parliament by Sharman Crawford, Esq., for the settlement of the present unfortunate relations between landlords and tenants in Ireland. If you remove the cause, be assured the effects will cease . . .44

To date, we have been unable to find out anything further about this

petition. At Monaghan Assizes, on 9 July 1852, Francis and Owen Kelly were

again put on trial45 for the murder of Thomas Douglas Bateson and this time the case took a dramatic turn. The Dundalk Democrat reported: '. . . When the witness, Casey . . . was produced, he admitted that he had

suffered great trouble of mind since the last trial, as he then swore to the

Kellys, though he was not certain of their identity. He admitted, on cross-examination . . . 'that the Kellys were not the men and that he was

not correct in his previous identification . . .' According to the Dundalk Democrat reporter, '. . . this appeared to startle the Crown and the Solicitor-General hurriedly left the court, with a request to have the case postponed until morning . . .' On 10 July, '. . . Owen Kelly was

acquitted and discharged . . .' and '. . . eleven of the jurors were for an

acquittal in the case of Francis Kelly . . .' The Dundalk Democrat

predicted: '. . . It is believed that he will be admitted to bail . . .\46

Apparently he was remanded in custody because over six months later, before the Monaghan February Assizes of 1853, the Dundalk Democrat

again predicted that '. . . Francis Kelly . . . will be discharged from

custody . . .'47 He was ? on 25 February 1853.48

Later, William Steuart Trench had this to say about the Kellys' ordeal:?

... It was well for the cause of justice that no verdict was obtained ... for it was

44 Idem. 45 Account based on Dundalk Democrat report, 10.7.1852. 46 Dundalk Democrat, 17.7.1852. 47 Dundalk Democrat, 19.2.1853. 48 Dundalk Democrat, 5.3.1853.




afterwards clearly proved that the prisoners . . . had not committed the murder ? that the

witnesses who swore so positively against them were mistaken as to the identities of the

parties, or swore falsely to obtain the reward . . . The narrow escape which these two men

had of undergoing the fearful penalty of the law for a crime they had not committed

produced an effect on me and, I doubt not, on others also, which will not be readily effaced and shows the caution which is necessary in such matters before a prisoner,

especially in times of excitement, is condemned to die . . ,49

While the Crown was openly prosecuting the Kellys for the murder of Thomas Bateson, its agents were secretly soliciting and cultivating several informers and potential informers. As early as 16 February 1852, Patrick Howley wrote to Thomas Redington, requesting that '. . . an

order may be given the Crown Solicitor to reimburse me in the sum of three pounds and four shillings paid for private information in the case . . .'50 However, the first big break-through came when, according to

Denis Carolan Rushe, '. . . a quarrel took place amongst the

Castleblayney Ribbonmen about the funds collected for the murder of Bateson which, it was alleged, the collectors had embezzled . . .' Then '.

. . one of the leading conspirators, Patrick Coomey, swore information .

.'51

. . . Patrick Coomey of Killycracken examined before me one of Her Majesty's Justices of the Peace states that : 'About a month before the murder of Mr. Bateson, I was present at a meeting of the tenants of the Templeton estate, that is, a few of the tenants. We met at a

public house in Castleblayney, kept by a man of the name of Boyd. There was present at

that meeting Edward McGuinness, James Woods, William McArdle, Bernard Rooney and Francis Flanagan, all tenants of the property. The subject of that meeting was the assassination of Mr. Bateson and while I was present there was ?14 paid in and I paid, or

advanced on promise of repayment, ?6, making the whole amount to the object, ?20. James Woods paid in ?2 as his subscription. Edward McGuinness paid ?1 as his

subscription. William McArdle paid 14s. as his subscription. Bernard Rooney and Francis

Flanagan promised to pay the same as the others. The money collected, ?20, was paid over

to Edward McGuinness. The resolution came to at the close of the meeting was that that the same to be paid to whoever could be got to perpetrate the deed of assassinating Mr.

Bateson. After the Special Commission, at which the Kellys were tried for the murder of Mr. Bateson, Bernard Grant came to me in my own house at Killycracken and required me to give him money on account of what he had earned, as one of the men who killed Mr.

Bateson, and threatened my life if I did not do so. I told him I had got none and got rid of him with some drink. He was accompanied by another person of the name of Grant who

was living with Mr. Grey's daughter, of Longfield. I also state that the same Bernard Grant came to "Red Mary's" house, at Killygola, to shoot Mr. Bateson. This was the night before the deed was done. I saw Bernard Grant in the town of Castleblayney on the day

Mr. Bateson was killed. He was drinking with others in Hanratty's public-house. There were others with him I did not know. This was before the murder was committed. It was

about 9 o'clock in the morning'. Taken and acknowledged before me this 26th April 1852, at Castleblayney. Signed : Charles Hunt, R.M. Patrick Coomey

. . .52

As a result of Patrick Coomey's information and the informations of

49 Realities of Irish Life (Trench). 50

ISPO, Outrage Papers, Monaghan, 1852. 51 Historical Sketches of Monaghan (Rushe). 52 Dundalk Democrat, 16.7.1853.



190

?}?%

fo?

Grant homestead (?), Corliss, Crossmaglen

Coomey homestead, Killycracken, Castleblayney




other informers, several men from the Castleblayney and Crossmaglen districts of counties Monaghan and Armagh were arrested. Among the

Castleblayney men were William McArdle, Bernard Rooney, Owen

McCooey, Patrick Lambe, James Woods, Edward McGuinness and Patrick Coomey himself. Among the Crossmaglen men were Bryan Grant and Neal Quinn.

At Monaghan Assizes on 9 July 1853, two of these men, Bryan Grant and Patrick Coomey, were put on trial53 for Thomas Bateson's murder

? Grant for having committed the crime and Coomey for having been an accessory. Judge Jackson presided and the following jury was sworn to try the case : Alexander Boyd; Bradford Stewart; Robert Black; John

Brown; Robert Dawson; John Carston; John Benson; James Hanna; Thomas Wilson; John Moorehead; William Villiers Ryan and James

Hodge. Attorney-General Abraham Brewster, Sir Thomas Staples, Henry Joy and Edward Kernan represented the Crown, Thomas O

Hagan represented the Bateson family, William McMeckan represented Bryan Grant and Samuel Ferguson represented Patrick Coomey. The

prisoners pleaded 'not guilty'. In the course of a lengthy opening speech for the Crown, Abraham

Brewster made several unsubstantiated and prejudicial statements,

including an unprecedented attack on the people of the Crossmaglen district. Referring to the murder of Robert Lindsay Mauleverer, committed near Crossmaglen on 23 May 1850, he said: '. . . From time to time, something like madness takes possession of a district, the inhabitants of which run headlong into every crime, until they become a

bye word. Among the districts having attained this unenviable fame was

the district of Crossmaglen, in County Armagh . . .' Later, when

referring to Bryan Grant's alleged involvement in Thomas Bateson's

murder, he said: '. . . It will be shown that among the results of the

system which prevailed in Crossmaglen was this ? an assessment in order to provide a fund to pay persons to commit these murders . . .'

Thirty-three Crown witnesses, including three informers, and two defence witnesses were examined during the seven-day trial. However,

despite a forty-one hours' absence and despite Judge Jackson's attempt to 'starve' them into a verdict, the jury failed to agree. The Dundalk

Democrat correspondent wrote: \ . . Mr. Moorehead . . . stated to his

Lordship that the impossibility of coming to a unanimous conclusion arose from the circumstance of one of the . . . jury having, from the

perusal of the evidence adduced by the Crown on the trial of the Kellys, formed so strong an opinion of their being the guilty parties, that he could not divest his mind of that feeling, and therefore could not

consistently convict the present prisoners . . .'

At Monaghan Assizes on 6 March 1854, Neal Quinn, Bryan Grant and Patrick Coomey were put on trial54 for Thomas Bateson's murder

53 Account based on Dundalk Democrat report, 16.7.1853. 54 Account based on Dundalk Democrat report, 11.3.1854.




? Quinn and Grant for having committed the crime and Coomey for

having been an accessory. The judge was Baron Greene. Twenty-nine Crown witnesses were examined, including the three informers who

gave evidence at the previous trial, and their corroborators. Examination of Patrick Nogher, the prime informer:?

... I was living on the townland of Corliss in December, 1851, and had been living there

from the time I was a little boy. I am now thirty-six years of age. Bryan Grant lived near

me. One field was between us. I knew him seventeen or eighteen years. I know Neal

Quinn. He lived on the next townland, Annaghmare. Squire Ball was the landlord of the

three. (Identifies the prisoner). Grant is married, and his wife's name was Bridget

Hanratty. I am married, and had childer living with me at Corliss. My sisters' names are

Anne and Bridget. Bridget is married. Anne lived with me since my mother died. Bridget and her husband Patrick McCann live near me across the street. I was threshing for

Bridget about a week before Castleblayney fair, and saw Grant on that day digging

potatoes. I went over to him in the field. He 'allowed' that there was such a man to be

killed at Castleblayney. I was then a Ribbonman, but not long before that. I had not been

a Ribbonman from the time I was married till then. Grant knew I had been a Ribbonman.

Grant spoke to me about the man being killed. I did not remain in the field long. I had

half-an-acre of land. He told me to get ready on the following Wednesday (which I did), and that I should go into Castleblayney. He told me that I would get as much money as

would redeem my farm, which was mortgaged to McCann. I know the hill ? 'Grant's Hill' ?

up from the house. He and I went up to the top of the hill on the way to Castleblayney. Neal Quinn came down the road from his house through a bog, to the crossroads between

Teer and Corliss, where we met, and we three went on to Castleblayney. I know Mrs.

Rule's hotel at Castleblayney. We came to the Mealmarket-house. Grant went into where

Coomey was (Identifies Coomey.) I had not known him before. I saw Grant and Coomey

speaking, and then they went to a public-house opposite the Market-house door. Quinn

parted from us. I stood outside of the public-house door. Grant called me in. Coomey and

Grant had some whiskey. They filled a glass of it and I drank it. They came out, and

Coomey said he would go to the market-house, and get his meal tied up, and would follow

us down to Hanratty's public-house. Grant and I went down there. Grant and I had some

whiskey there. Coomey came in before Quinn. Owen McCooey was the waiter. We were

up-stairs. Edward McGuinness and Patrick Lamb came into the room. We had drink

there. Coomey said he thought that Mr. Bateson would not be in that day, but would

surely be in on the Wednesday after ? that is the fair day. Coomey, Grant, and I left. I

saw James Woods near Hanratty's as we came up the street. Grant and Coomey were then

with me. There was an entry off the street. Grant, McGuinness, Woods, and Lamb, went

into the entry, while I stood on the street. Grant came out to me and said he had got a

shilling from them to get refreshment. We went to McTavie's, and Grant and I had bread

and tea. Grant paid for it, and we then went home together. On the Monday and Tuesday

following I threshed for Grant. I finished the job on Tuesday evening. He told me on that

evening to be down to go to Castleblayney on the Wednesday morning. I went and found

him at home. This was after breakfast. I saw Neal Quinn while we stopped a while on

Grant's Hill, and he came down the same way as he had come before. We all three went to

Castleblayney, and went into Hanratty's. Pat Lamb provided some drink. We did not stop

long there. We went up the street to the Market-house, and there saw Pat Coomey. We

returned to Hanratty's with Coomey. I saw Quinn afterwards in Hanratty's. Patrick

Hughes was the boy that kept the yard. When we went back we had more whiskey.

Coomey said that in the job that was going to be done there was not a bit of danger. Grant

was there. Grant and Coomey left Hanratty's together. Coomey said to Grant that he

would fetch him out to his place, and that I was to stop with Quinn in Castleblayney.

Hughes came in, and Quinn asked him what brought him there? Hughes said that Woods

would make good what he had promised in the entry on the previous Wednesday.

McCooey was laid off to point out Mr. Bateson in the court house on the following day.




Coomey said he had the pistols out at his place, and would have them in with him when he

would come in. They left, and I did not see them. I came out, and went into Duffy's public house. Neal Quinn and I had drink there. There were plenty of others there. Duffy was

going to be beaten there. We left. The police came and turned us out over the road. Quinn

and I went into the lodging-house, where we stopped that night. We went back to the door

of Duffy's, and we found it closed. We went up to the street, but I do not know the name

of the lodging house keeper. The house was in Monaghan street. There were two women

and a man there. Quinn and I remained there, and while we sat there Quinn said would

they accept drink but the woman said there should come no whiskey in there that night. One Finegan, a baker, came in, who said that he had half a pint with him, and he shared it.

The next morning Quinn told me to go down to Hanratty's to see if Coomey and Grant

had come down. I did so, and found them there. Coomey gave me one shilling for Neal

and I to get our breakfast. I returned and found he had gone away. I saw him next in

Boyd's public-house and drank the shilling. We then returned to Hanratty's and found

Coomey and Grant there. They asked had we got our breakfast. We said not, that a

shilling was not enough to get our breakfast. Coomey then came down and threw three

shillings on the table. I took them up and went to Muckno Street, to a house within a few

doors of Hanratty's. Grant, Quinn, and I breakfasted there. We then went back to

Hanratty's. We had more drink there. Frank Hanratty was there as a servant-man in

charge of the yard. He lives in the townland of Drummacon, next to Corliss. I saw him in

the yard. Grant asked him to get the pistols, which he had in his care, and he got them. I

saw them in Grant's hand when Hanratty handed them to him. One of the pistols was

brass, and the other blackish-coloured. I went into Hanratty's house. Quinn took one and

Grant the other pistol. Coomey went to the mill, where he said he had flax to be scutched.

That was after Grant got the pistols. We remained a while, and Grant then left by himself.

I and Quinn remained behind. Quinn and I went near to the pound. Quinn told me to go back to Hanratty's and get the coat which was up-stairs, and fetch it with me. I did so, and

found it on the table, and put it on me. Quinn and I went then along the Keady road. We

met Grant in the loaning, on the right-hand side, where we lay waiting for Mr. Bateson. I

did not then know Corratanty. While we were waiting Quinn told me to take off the coat

and put on his, and he took my cap, and I put on his hat. Quinn wore a white frieze frock.

My own coat was black. I put on Quinn's coat under the other coat. I saw a man coming down the other road, like a cart-road. They let him pass till he came down past the

loaning. They followed him down, and I after them. Quinn beckoned to me to stand back.

They went down to a hollow after him. Mr. Bateson was walking on the left hand of the

road as you go to Castleblayney, and Quinn on the same side. In the hollow, Quinn came

sharp up to him, and fired his pistol at him. He (Mr. Bateson) gave a leap, and his hat fell

off. Grant fired, and the pistol missed fire. Mr. Bateson staggered, and fell on the road

side. They closed in on him then. I was within three or four yards. Grant first, then Quinn, and I after, ran up the road. I did not see the pistols after. We turned into a field on the

right and crossed the country to the right. We passed a lake on our right, then crossed a

river, and then another road, and then out into the fields again. I had never been along there before. We came to Patrick Brennan's house. Quinn sent me in to tell Brennan to

come out. I did so, and he came out. Quinn said he was off his way and to show him the

way to James Brennan's house. He did so, and came to James Brennan's house, to tell

James to come out. He did so, and brought a noggin of milk, which was drank. Patrick

Brennan continued to show us the way for a mile, until we came to Tullynahattina school-house. We went then to Teer Island, where James Daly lived. He is in America. I

went in and asked a little boy where his father was. He said he was not in. I told Quinn and

Grant that, and we rested a while at the back of the ditch. Quinn took off the coat I had

brought from Hanratty's and rolled it up, and threw it at the back of the ditch. Quinn had

the frieze coat on him, which he had put on before we came to the lake. They told me to go

home, and I did so. I reached home about eight o'clock. The mark I knew the hour by was

the train leaving Castleblayney. I did not find my sister at home. She came home the next

morning, but I did not feel her coming home. I was barrow-man in Crossmaglen and went

the next morning to Crossmaglen. I went early, as it was the fair day. I know McConville's

public-house, and was in there that fair-day. I saw Grant there, and my wife was with me




in McConville's, at the kitchen fire. I was not with them. I saw him and Lamb and

McGuinness at McConville's. There was some whiskey. They allowed to pay some of the

money to Grant and Quinn. I got ?1 in McConville's from McGuinness. I then came down

to McArdle's and my wife and I had there some bread and whiskey. I went to Grant's

house the day after the fair ? that was on Friday. My sister Nancy, and my wife, were

there, and Grant and his wife were at home. James Hanratty was there too, and also Hugh

Hanratty, and Christopher Grant, Brian's brother, was there, and Mary Cowan, and a

poor woman lying in the corner. Watters, a young boy, was there, but he is dead. We were

alL4rinking whiskey, which I and Hugh Hanratty were sent to bring from Cross. They all

joined together, and I brought a pint myself. This whiskey drinking took place early in the

day. We had sonie bread and tea. I and my wife remained till late in the day. We had some

bread and went\ome. i next saw Coomey about four or five weeks after, standing at some

meal in sacks at tl?e market-house. He and I then went to a public-house, and he called for some drink, and we had it. He then came back to his meal. I told him at the public-house that I was badly off, and that they would not give me anything. He gave me a quarter of

meal. I did not pay him for it. I came secondly, and he gave me another quarter. I got ?3

10s. from McGuinness, and the meal from Coomey. McGuinness first gave me ?1, and

then ?2 10s. I was taken by the police after Christmas, 1852, to Armagh gaol, from

Crossmaglen, and am there ever since. I have not been home since nor have I ever spoken to my wife, or my sister Nancy since, or any one, as I was kept in a cell by myself

. . .

Cross-examination of Patrick Nogher:?

... I have known Neal Quinn for many years to be Mr. McWatty's bog-bailiff on Squire Ball's land. I had often seen him at the agent's, Mc Watty's, Castleblayney. I was arrested about twelve months after Mr. Bateson was murdered. I heard that the Kellys were

arrested, but not at the time. I heard of their being brought to Dublin to be tried. I heard of their being tried at the commission here. I was not at home then. I left Corliss in June after Mr. Bateson was killed. I was in England. I heard that the Kellys were arrested, but did not hear that they were tried. I was labouring till I went to England. Coomey, on the second day, in Castleblayney, said that he had the articles, meaning the pistols, at home. I first saw the pistols when Hanratty handed them, one to Grant and the other to Quinn.

Coomey said he would send in the pistols by Grant the next day. The pound is at the edge of the town. I saw several persons on the road as we went. I returned and rejoined Quinn there after I had got the coat. I did not notice any one on the road between that and the

loaning. I had neither arms nor a stick. We only waited while we changed dress before Mr. Bateson came. I put Quinn's freize coat under my own dark coat. I did not button my coat for it was tight. Quinn and Grant went after him first, and I followed, about five or six

perches, behind them. I was prepared, as far as I could go, to take part in that murder. I was ready to lend a hand. I did not interfere. I did not lay a hand on him, for Quinn beckoned me back. I never saw Bateson before, and I stood by and saw him butchered before me. That was the first time I was ever engaged in such a thing. Grant asked me to

join the murder. I went in the next day ready to join in the murder, and I would have gone according to the orders I would get. While the whiskey carried on it was very well. Grant

was in front all the way when we took up through the fields. I had been in Keady by Newtown road but not by the Corratanty road. I went to England to strive and earn a

living, but not because I was afraid on account of the part I had taken in Mr. Bateson's murder. I remained in England till after harvest, and came home in November, and was arrested twelve months after the murder, after Christmas.

Did you ever say that you struck him with his own umbrella?

No, but they had it as a mock against me that I had done nothing but hold the umbrella for him. I did say at first, in Armagh gaol, that I had only got a few shillings. That was told to the governor.

? At the time I told that lie I had received ?3 10s. and the six stone of meal. I did not swear against them till they swore against me first. I was at Castleblayney, and my sister and wife was there, but not in the one apartment. I was brought here out of a cell in Armagh gaol, where I was ever since I was examined here . . .




Examination of Francis Hanratty, informer:?

... I lived at Drumacon, and was a tenant on the Templeton estate. I was keeping the yard in Castleblayney at James Devlin's, who was keeping the house for Jas. Hanratty's children. I had a pair of pistols on the day of Mr. Bateson's murder, one brass barrelled and the other iron. (Identifies the brass-barrelled one and the iron one). It was not broken then. They had no mark on them. I gave them to Neal Quinn, Nogher and Grant.

(Identifies them and Coomey). I gave them the pistols between eight and nine o'clock on

the Thursday morning. I had kept them on the dividing wall. Coomey came on Wednesday night and got two sixpences from me. On Thursday he gave me 2Vz? to buy a bar of iron, and told me to give it to these three men. I did not buy it. I got the pistols from Patrick Lamb and Owen McCooey. They were tenants on Temple ton's estate. Coomey asked me on Wednesday if I got the pistols he sent in to me. I had then got them. I told him so. The

men came into the yard where I was cleaning up the stables and there I gave them the

pistols. I afterwards saw the men in the town. They left at about three o'clock. Patrick

Nogher gave me half a glass of whiskey, Quinn being by, but not Grant. Neal and Nogher then went away, and I did not see them afterwards. I was standing at the counter, and they turned as towards their home. I saw James Daly on the Wednesday, and he gave me a coat to lay by. I did so. I afterwards gave it to McCooey to give to those men, that is to say,

Quinn and Grant. McCooey took it away. Grant and Nogher were by. Daly is gone to

America. The coat was a dark one.

Cross-examination of Francis Hanratty:?

... It was fourteen years ago since I first commenced to keep the yard. I then quitted, and had recommenced again more than three years before this occurrence. I attended every

Wednesday. I put the pistols on the wall between the two stables. I received them about ten o'clock in the morning. I did not see if they were loaded. I had not an idea, when I first

got them, what they were for. I was told, before I gave them, that they were for the

purpose of murdering Mr. Bateson. I gave one shilling towards the murder. I was then a tenant on the Templeton estate. I gave the shilling nearly a year before the murder was

committed . . .

To the judge:?

. . . The shilling was asked of me for that purpose nearly a year before he was murdered . .

Cross-examination resumed:?

. . . The three men came together into the stable, and I gave the pistols before I got the treat of the half-glass. I could not say what the bar was for, except to murder him. I heard of a reward many a time. It was posted up in Castleblayney, I suppose. I can neither read nor write, but it was read to me, but I cannot remember how much it was. I heard the

people say it was a large reward. I heard of the Kellys being tried for this murder . . .

Re-examination :?

... I was taken the Sunday before Easter Sunday, and after that I gave my information . . .

Examination of Nancy Nogher, the informer's sister:?

. . . I am Patrick Nogher's sister. (Identifies the prisoners). I live near Grant and Quinn. I




know Grant's Hill. I remember the fair day before the murder, and saw on Grant's Hill my brother Nogher, Grant, and Quinn. I did not see them on the next day. I was at that time

living in my brother's. Patrick Nogher did not come home that night (Wednesday). I went

to Grant's house on Thursday evening, and slept there that night. I had been in his service.

Grant was not home when we went to bed after supper. The mistress called me up when

Brian came home. I had been a good while in bed. I got up and washed a shirt of Grant's. I

had good light of fire. The mistress desired me to wash it. I found the shirt in the pot at the

fire. There were stains on the wrists of it which I could not take out. The stains were dark

reddish. When in bed I heard him say to his wife that Mr. Bateson was killed. I was in the

kitchen all after that. I heard him say the next morning that Mr. Bateson was killed ? they

could not deny it. The wife got up at that time and cleaned his shoes. There was a poor woman (Molly Louth) lying in the corner. She was a good while sick. I saw Brian dress

himself and shave after breakfast. When going to the fair of Cross, he put on the shirt I

had washed. He had others, but not so decent as that one. He and his wife went to the fair, and he returned a while after night, and Patrick Nogher and his wife, and Brian's brother

and wife. This was on Friday night . . .

Examination of Mary Louth. a beggar-woman:?

... I knew Brian Grant, and heard of the murder of Bateson. I was begging through the

world. I was at Grant's house, sick, lying for a fortnight, before I heard of the murder. I

heard it on Thursday from poor people travelling. Brian Grant went to the fair on

Wednesday. He did not come that night. I did not see him on Thursday morning. On the

Thursday night I was lying at the fire beside the jamb-wall. Nancy Nogher was there, and

Mrs. Grant and his three small children. I awoke during the night, about ten or eleven

o'clock, as near as I can guess. There was no candle light, but a good fire of good slane

turf. When I awoke, I saw Nancy Nogher there and the mistress. Nancy was washing

something, and I asked her what it was. I saw the mistress cleaning shoes. I did not

pretend, or ever let on I saw her. I saw Brian Grant on Friday morning, going, about

breakfast time, to the fair of Cross. He asked me how I was. He came back from the fair

about eight o'clock at night. I know Pat Nogher, and saw him there on Saturday morning, and his wife. (Identifies Brian Grant.)

Cross-examination of Mary Louth:?

... I was treated well in Brian Grant's house. I had not this dress at the time. Some one

paid for the gown. Mr. Greer, the policeman, gave me the gown . . .

Examination of Betty Nogher, the informer's wife:?

... I am Patrick Nogher's wife. I remember the fair day of Castleblayney in December

1854. My husband did not sleep at home that night. He came home the next night, between eight and nine o'clock. I know Nancy Nogher. She slept in Brian Grant's on the

night of the fair. I remember when Mr. Bateson was killed, and was in Castleblayney

afterwards, and saw Pat Coomey, and from him I got without payment half a hundred of

meal. Patrick Nogher was with me then. I afterwards myself got a half-hundred and half a

stone. I know Luke Duffy's public-house in Castleblayney. I was there after the murder, in

Luke Duffy's, and Pat Nogher, and Grant, and Coomey were there also and we took some

drink. I remember when my husband was taken, and I never saw him since . . .

Cross-examination of Betty Nogher:?

... I know Mary Louth, the beggar-woman. I saw her to-day. A sergeant gave me this cloak. His name is Mr. Greer. I had no conversation with Molly Louth. I could not have




any such. She was along with us after making her information. I talked with her, for she

slept in the room next to us . . .

Examination of Bernard Brennan, informer:?

... I knew Mr. Bateson, and had dealings with him. I remember when he lost his life. I

had a conversation a few months after the event with Pat Coomey, who complained that

he had given money to certain parties to purchase people to commit that murder, and that

he had never got it. He said he gave ?6 to one party, and ?2 10s to another party. He

mentioned the name of Quinn, Grant, and Nogher as being the parties concerned. He

mentioned that there was one of them called at his place some time previous to the death

of Mr. Bateson . . .

Extract from the cross-examination of Bernard Brennan:?

... I was confined to my bed on the night Mr. Bateson was murdered. I was sick, and went

to hospital ? Madame Steevens's Hospital, in Dublin. Head-Constable Kane gave me a

letter, and I went to Dublin to the Verd?n Hotel. Madame Steevens's is the hospital for

the police. I stayed there four or five months, and then returned to Castleblayney. It was

in June that I went to hospital, and between December and June I had the conversation

with Coomey, and during that interval it was that I brought Coomey before Mr. Bloxham.

Mr. Hunt was present. The interview took place in Mr. Bloxham's lodgings, after twilight. I brought Coomey there. There was much conversation, and I took very little part therein.

I heard Coomey state about the perpetration of the murder. I never heard him since or

before use those words. I brought Coomey from Castleblayney, having met him on the

road. I did not mention the reward to Coomey, nor he to me. Mr. Hunt said it would be

better for him (Coomey) to tell the truth, and I told him the same. I was encouraging him

to tell the truth in Hunt and Bloxham's presence. Mr. Bloxham and Mr. Hunt took down

the conversation, and, I think, on different sheets of paper. I took a little part on the

surface of the conversation, as I had introduced Coomey as the hero of the conversation.

We were an hour an a half or two hours there. There was a great deal said. I think Mr.

Bloxham took the longest note. I think anything that was tangible in what Coomey said

was taken down. If I were a schoolmaster I would be a very bad brat breaker [laughter]. I

gave Coomey advice to go forward. I heard a man say that it would be well to put a ball

into that man [pointing to prisoner Coomey] and then he would stop cackling. Before I

brought Coomey to Mr. Hunt I told him there was a heavy charge against himself. Nothing had occurred between Mr. Hunt and me before I had brought him. I thought, from

Coomey's being surrounded by conspirators and such like, that I was entitled to say that to

him. I said so to him in the presence of Mr. Hand. Mr. Bateson's murder being the topic of

the discourse, the heavy charge was understood to apply to that . . .

Examination of Charles Hunt, R.M.:?

... I know Patrick Coomey and saw him in Castleblayney, in Mr. Bloxham's lodgings, in

April 1852. Brennan was there also. I cautioned Coomey and told him to recollect, before

he opened his mouth, that he was before a magistrate, for, if he said anything to criminate

himself, it would be my duty to take it down and use it against him. He considered for a

long time and then stood up and said he would tell the truth, no matter what were the

consequences. He did so and I took it down and he and I signed it . . .

Counsel clashed over the admissibility of Patrick Coomey's information as evidence but the judge over-ruled defence counsels's

objections and the information was read. Then, according to the

Dundalk Democrat, '. . . a declaration made by Coomey on 13th




November 1852, before Mr. Hunt, was next read, in which he said the

charge against him was wrong, and he denied the charge . . .'

Eight defence witnesses were examined, six of whom swore alibis for Neal Quinn, and, at 4 p.m. on Wednesday 8 March, the jury retired to

consider their verdict. During the course of their deliberations, one of them became ill, and was unconscious for three hours, but at 12 a.m.

they announced that a verdict had been agreed on! At 9 a.m. on Thursday 9 March, Judge Baron Greene took his seat on

the bench and Neal Quinn, Bryan Grant and Patrick Coomey stood in the dock to hear the verdict. The Dundalk Democrat:?

. . . The names of the jury . . . were called over and ... in reply to the question of the

Clerk of the Crown as to whether they had agreed to their verdict, the foreman stated that

they had and handed in a verdict finding Neal Quinn and Brian Grant guilty of the murder

of Thomas D. Bateson, Esq., and Patrick Coomey guilty of exciting them to the

commission of the said murder (sensation). The prisoners heard the announcement

without exhibiting any emotion . . .

At 9 a.m. on Thursday 10 March, Judge Baron Greene entered the

court, which was '. . . completely filled in every part . . .', to deliver his

sentence. The Dundalk Democrat again:?

. . . Neal Quinn, Bryan Grant and Patrick Coomey were then placed at the bar. None of

the prisoners exhibited any feelings of emotion at the awful sentence which was to be

passed upon them. Baron Greene then proceeded, amid breathless attention, to pass sentence. He expressed his entire concurrence in the verdict of the jury and implored the

convicts not to indulge in any vain or illusory hope of a commutation ... for they might rest assured that on the day to be fixed for their execution, they would be consigned, as

sure as the day dawned, to a sure and certain death . . .

After what the Dundalk Democrat correspondent described as '. . . a

feeling and impressive address . . .', Judge Baron Greene concluded: '. .

. It now only remains for me to pass upon you the extreme sentence of the law, which is that you be taken from the place where you now stand to the place of execution, and that you be there hanged by the neck until

you are dead, and that your bodies, Neal Quinn and Bryan Grant, be buried within the precincts of the prison, and may the Lord have mercy on your souls . . .'

Neal Quinn, Bryan Grant and Patrick Coomey were hanged at

Monaghan Jail on 10 April 1854. A Northern Whig reporter wrote a

graphic account of their last hours on earth:?

. . . On Monday terminated the mortal careers of Brian Grant, Neal Quinn and Patrick

Coomey, convicted at the late Monaghan Spring Assizes of being concerned in the murder

of Mr. Thomas Douglas Bateson, on 4th December 1851, on the public road leading from

Castleblayney, the two former as being the actual perpetrators of the crime, and Coomey as being an accessory before the fact. Since the condemnation of Quimi, Grant and

Coomey, they gave up all hopes of any alteration being made in the terms of the sentence.

The barbarity of the crime of which they had been convicted and the great exertions made

by the law officers of the crown to bring to justice the actual perpetrators no doubt justify such a conclusion. They, therefore, appeared to seek from the religion to which they




belong the only consolation they were fated to enjoy in the brief term of their earthly careers. Their wishes in this respect have received every care from the Catholic bishop of

the diocese who appropriated three of his curates to attend to the spiritual wants of the

unfortunate men, the Rev. Mr. Hughes devoting himself to Quinn, the Rev. Mr. Smith to

Grant and the Rev. Mr. Birmingham to Coomey.55 And from the period of the passing of

the sentence on the wretched men until they took their places on the scaffold on Monday, most arduously did these gentlemen appear to devote themselves to the deeply important work which had been committed to them. Quinn, who had formerly been of a daring, reckless turn of mind, so much so that it is said he was found playing at ball with his

brother near a house in which an inquest was holding on the body of a man with whose

murder the coroner's jury found him guilty, while under the Rev. Mr. Hughes' care,

changed his demeanour in the most remarkable manner. Grant had the character of being a man of somewhat mild disposition against whom no charge had ever been brought up to

the Bateson case. But the most extraordinary being of them all was Coomey. He was

possessed of an amount of education and intelligence, more than is ordinarily found

among persons in his rank in life. He had read a good deal on general subjects and was

particularly conversant with the scriptures and the lives of the heads of his church, and was

ever ready to discuss religious topics with those officers of the jail who differed from him in

religious opinions. Few of them, however, were ever willing to meet him on such points from the mass of scriptural quotations which he could at once bring to bear in his favour in

these controversies. One of the most extraordinary features which characterized the

unfortunate men and their relations is that since the passing of the sentence of death, with one single exception, the slightest exhibition of grief did not take place either on their part or on the part of their friends during the numerous interviews that passed between them.

In parting forever in this world with wives, with children and with brothers, in interviews at which in every case an officer of the jail was present, not a tear was shed on either side, not a single manifestation of that feeling which one might imagine would take place on

such awful occasions. The exception I speak of is that which occurred about a week since on the visit of Coomey's wife and his several children, all young in years, when they took

their final leave of their unfortunate father. On that melancholy occasion the children, who had not together seen their father for a period of nearly two years since his first

imprisonment, climbed upon his knees and fondled him in the most affectionate manner

but apparently without drawing from him that strong display of paternal feeling which

such an occasion was calculated to excite. Quinn, who was a tall, powerful young man and, as he said himself, about thirty years old, was married only eight months prior to his arrest

and was visited frequently since his confinement by his wife,56 an excellent and interesting

specimen of the female peasantry of the country. Their interviews were such as would only lead the spectator to think that it was for some trifling larceny the husband was

incarcerated, all symptoms of grief being absent on both sides. Quinn's two brothers and

his wife visited him on Saturday last with a view to the settlement of some land of which he was in possession, and that matter having been arranged they left him again as formerly. The wife took her final leave of him on Saturday without a tear being shed on either side,

parting with the most seeming indifference to the crisis the morning would bring forth.

Grant's friends had not visited him for some time past, his wife being the last to part from

him, and his conduct at that time was a character similar to that of his fellow prisoners. The three had been kept apart from the period of sentence of death having been passed and on Sunday morning a request was made by one of them that they should be permitted to converse together for a short time. This was granted and having been engaged in

conversation for some time together the Governor went forward and enquired if they had

any declaration to make which they might wish published after their deaths. They replied that they would make up their minds on the matter. He then asked if they had a wish to

address the people who might assemble at the execution next day. Quinn and Grant said

55 Curates in Enniskillen. Rev. James Hughes 1854-5; Rev. Daniel Smyth 1851-6; Rev. Peter Birmingham 1853-7.

56 Rose Carragher (Mrs Maggie Carragher, Skeriff, Cullyhanna).




that they would wish to do so but must be guided in that respect by the advice which they would receive from their clergy. Quinn, however, followed up with his answer by saying, as the most particular part, meaning their appearance before the crowd, was not yet come,

they could not exactly at that time say what they would do. They repeatedly to the officers

of the prison protested their innocence of the crime for which they were about to suffer

death. Coomey alleged that he had been solely induced to make his declaration by the

artifices of his brother-in-law, Barney Brennan, in the hope of obtaining the reward and

that he had taken no part whatever in the conspiracy. A short time since, Quinn and Grant

memorialed the Lord Lieutenant to allow their bodies, after the execution, to be handed over to their friends for burial, but to that memorial no reply was returned, so that the

original order for their burial within the precincts of the jail was allowed to take its course.

On Monday morning, through the courtesy of Mr. Temple, the governor, I was permitted to see the three prisoners, in company with some others. I found them walking in one part

of the prison, after having partaken of an excellent breakfast. Quinn and Grant were

smoking and the three appeared to be in the best of spirits. I expressed, as did several of

the party with me, my regret at seeing them in their unfortunate position, and Quinn and

Grant replied in the strongest terms that they were fully prepared for the fate that awaited

them, that thanks to the attention which had been paid to them by their clergymen they were ready to meet their God. In the course of the conversation which ensued, Coomey

particularity entered into religious topics, remarking that he never in the whole of his life

felt so happy as he did at that moment, with the confidence before him of, in a brief time,

meeting his saviour. Quinn said that if reprieve would come he would not accept it, as he

should never be better prepared to die as he was at that time. They both expressed their

forgiveness of the prosecutors and that they had no complaint to make as to the treatment

they had received from the officers of the prison. Coomey said he had ate and drank at the

table of the best of society but thank God he was never in a better health in his life than at

that time. On it being remarked that we were from Belfast, Coomey said he had been

there in his time, too. Grant spoke little nor did he seem to have a wish to share in the

conversation. On our leaving, the unfortunate men shook each of the party warmly by the

hand and expressed a hope that when we were about to die we would be as fully prepared for it as they were. Throughout the entire conversation Grant (?) and Coomey spoke with a spirit and freedom which was perfectly astonishing, looking at their approaching end as a

merchant might be supposed to do on entering on a prosperous enterprise which would

reap for him rich and glorious results. Mr. Sawnsea (?), the Sub-Sheriff, called with them

in the morning and, in going up to them said he was sorry to see three men in their

position. 'Sorry', said one of them in a tone of surprise, 'why it's glad you should be, sir'.

He then asked them if they had any statement to make to him in relation to the offence for

which they were to die. 'No', said Coomey, 'our saviour said nothing when he was

executed'. About half-past ten o'clock, large crowds of people assembled in front of the

jail and the approaches to it, and on many of the surrounding eminences which

commanded a view of the place of execution. Being market-day in Monaghan, the crowd,

perhaps, was larger than it otherwise might have been. At about twelve o'clock, there were about 5000 people assembled. A body of police, under the command of

Sub-Inspector McKelvey, took up their position in front of the drop and a troop of the 2nd

Dragoons, under Captain Briscoe, were also drawn up near the place. The drops being

only capable of executing two of the unfortunate men at a time, it was arranged that Quinn and Grant, whose bodies were to be buried within the precincts of the jail, should be first

brought out. The last rites of the church having been administered to them in the chapel of

the jail by the Rev. Messrs. Hughes and Smith, the procession was formed to the

press-room. In passing from the yard to the press-room, an incident occurred which,

though trifling in itself, tended to show Quinn's state of mind. Clothed in their dead dress, the two men passed through the yard, each in company of his spiritual adviser and, during the time they were shaking hands with some of the officers of the prison, the Rev. Mr.

Smith had passed some distance in advance of Quinn, when the latter came skipping after

him like a schoolgirl, threw his arms round his neck and drew him on in a lightsome hurried pace for a short distance. The action to be understood must have been witnessed and showed a spirit which no fate could overcome. When they arrived in the press-room,




the Rev. Gentlemen read some prayers and Quinn said: 'Hell cannot scare us now'. When

the hangman pinioned his arms, Quinn said: 'He's doing the best job ever was done for

us'. To the Rev. Gentlemen Quinn said: 'We return you many thanks, gentlemen. Will

you not give us your blessing before you go?' Both Rev. Gentlemen then blessed them.

Rev. Mr. Smith said: 'Remember the penitent thief on the cross. In one moment you'll be

in heaven. You have eternal happiness within your reach'. Quinn said: 'Mary, mother of

God receive us. Prepare heaven for us'. Grant did not say anything audible but appeared to be repeating prayers in an undertone. The rope was then adjusted round their necks, the miserable men stepped out on the drop and there was a burst of sensation from the

crowd below. The hangman pulled the caps over their faces, the bolts were drawn and they were both launched into eternity. Grant's death was immediate, his neck having been

broken in the fall, and he died without a struggle. But not so Quinn, for, having made a

request to the executioner to change the position of the noose before he went out on the

drop, when he fell he raised his legs in violent convulsions and for nearly fifteen minutes

the occasional heaving of his breast showed that life, during that time, was not extinct. It is

somewhat singular in relation to the hanging of Quinn that it is said he prayed on the night before his death that he might have a long death struggle, so his request was granted.

After remaining suspended for three-quarters of an hour, the bodies were cut down and

buried within the jail. At one o'clock precisely, Coomey was brought from the chapel. He

carried in his hand a small crucifix and passed to the press-room and appeared to be

devoutly engaged in prayer. He was heard to say audibly: T am quite content. I am going to my God'. Before he was pinioned, he twice fell on his knees and received a blessing from each of the Rev. Gentlemen. The executioner having pinioned him and some prayers

having been repeated and the rope placed round his neck, he said: 'May I go now,

gentlemen?' A silence ensued during which the executioner, amid loud cries from the

crowd below, placed him on the drop. He then said: 'Lord Jesus receive my soul'. The

executioner drew the bolt, the drop fell and the wretched culprit died without a struggle. The death of Coomey appeared to excite much greater sensation among the crowd than

that of the others. There was considerable shouting, or rather yelling, and one woman in

the vicinity of the drop fainted the instant it fell. The body, having remained suspended for

three-quarters of an hour, was cut down and given over to the friends of the deceased. So

terminated the fate of three unfortunate men. Grant has left a wife and four children,

Coomey a wife and seven children and Quinn a wife only to deplore their ignominious fate. It will be recollected from a paragraph which we published some time since, that

Quinn had a narrow escape with his life at the Armagh Assizes of 1840, when charged with

the murder of Bryan McCreesh,57 and it appears that he only escaped on that occasion by one witness for the prosecution (an old man), in attempting to identify the murderer of

McCreesh, put the crier's wand on Mr. McCutcheon of Armagh jail instead of on Quinn.

Shortly after Coomey's body was cut down, the entire multitude which had assembled,

dispersed and the town resumed its ordinary market-day appearance . . ,58

The Monaghan hangings caused considerable controversy in both the Irish and English press and racial and religious rancour raised their ugly heads. The editor of the Dundalk Democrat used the occasion to call for the abolition of capital punishment, describing it as 'legal violence' and

'England's sovereign nostrum for the evils of the land system':?

. . . British law has had its triumph in Monaghan this week, and the gibbet has groaned beneath the weight of three of its victims, launched into eternity in pursuance of the

Sheriffs warrant, and by the noose of the hangman's slippery rope. Quin, Grant and

Coomey have been strangled in front of Monaghan gaol; and we suppose that all lovers of

'law and order' feel in their inmost souls that a great deed has been don0., a great victory for outraged humanity accomplished.

57 Seanchas Ard Mhacha (1980-81). 58

Quoted in Dundalk Democrat, 15.4.1854.




It is a terrible thing to take away life, be the operation performed by the blow of an

assassin, or the art of the hangman. It is a frightful thing to extinguish the breath of life

breathed into the nostrils of man by his Creator be the death warrant signed behind a

hedge or in a court of law. And it is an awful deed to send a spirit to judgment by violence, no matter whether the law of vengeance

? if we be allowed the expression ? or the code

of a legislature sanction the performance of the tragedy. Man is an erring mortal, and his

decisions and judgments are so often guided and controlled by passion and fear, that small

reliance should be placed in their accuracy when a complicated case comes before him; and in his hands so many innocent persons have suffered the penalty due only to guilt, that

impartial justice cries out for the abolition of capital punishment. The murder for which Quin, Grant and Coomey were strangled, a murder as

coldblooded and cruel as there is on the list of agrarian crimes in Ireland, was imputed to

others. Francis Kelly was charged with its perpetration, and was tried on that charge three or four times at special and ordinary commissions. And did not some of the jurors refuse to acquit him? Did they not believe, and hundreds along with them, that he was one of the

persons who gave the fatal blows which deprived Mr. Bateson of life? And was there not an outcry raised by the law officers of the crown, and several others, that it was almost

impossible to find a jury to convict, constituted as the jury panels of the country were

then? Yet, after all, the law officers believed him innocent, and permitted him to go at

large, thus vindicating the integrity of those jurors who had refused to convict him. If Francis Kelly had been sacrificed, if in his innocence he had been consigned by the

verdict of a jury and the sentence of a judge to the tender mercy of a hangman, and

strangled on the scaffold of Monaghan, what atonement could be made for such a; sacrifice? Redress or the desire to make it, would come too late for him when stretched in' his cold grave. We, therefore, say that capital punishment ought to be abolished, as it has

often fallen on the innocent as well as the guilty. With regard to the application of this torture as a remedy to suppress crime, we have

often given our opinion of its inefficiency. It is England's sovereign nostrum for the evils of

the land system. If tortured and outraged tenant farmers are plundered by bad landlords, and driven mad by cruelties practised in no other country but this, and violence follow,

English legislation has no other plan by which to create respect for life and property, than to convict and strangle the offenders. That this species of torture has not produced the

desired effect, we need not attempt to prove. It is more an aggravation of the evils it is meant to cure, than a corrector of insubordination. The law exacts vengeance, but it does not subdue disaffection. It exacts blood for blood, but it has not the power to make the

hearts of those who suffer wrong forget the cause of their sufferings. On the contrary it

drives men to plot mischief in the dark, and leads those crushed and broken by oppression step by step to the lonely glen or wood, or behind the hedge, to take sure aim at the

persons they consider the authors of their misery. Quin, Grant and Coomey have been hung, but who believes that this hanging has cured

the evils which, it is supposed, led to the death of Mr. Bateson? The sore which festered, in the hearts of the plotters

? if plotters there were ? could not be healed by any such

legal violence. The officers of the government, having succeeded in securing the

conviction of the parties who were strangled on Monday, may think they have applied the

proper remedy. But how foolish and ridiculous is such an idea. Starving men and their

families will not be comforted by lectures on the virtues of fasting and abstinence; nor will

the oppressed, who see the fruits of their labour carried off to pamper those who do not

toil, be calmed down, should they become turbulent, by any remedy except that afforded

by justice. For these reasons, and on these grounds, we pronounce capital punishments unsuited to the purpose their promoters have in view. They have done no good, and they never can do any good in districts where oppression gives birth to agrarian violence. They are injurious to morality, because they brutalize the feelings; they are fatal to the administration of justice, because the innocent often suffer death as well as the guilty, and

consequently public confidence in their rectitude is lost.

We have often told the authorities the course they should pursue, in order to suppress turbulence and outrage. We have cited the language of a constitutional judge, Mr. Justice

Ball, to the Louth Grand Jury, when he told them 'It was not only their duty to punish the




perpetrators of crime, but also to seek out the cause of that crime and remove it.' Has this

been done? Has the cause of agrarian crime been removed, or even an attempt made to

discover it? Has a commission been constituted and empowered to visit the homes of the

poor farmers in what people called 'the disturbed districts', but which might be more

appropriately called 'the starving and oppression districts?' Not at all. A single word has

not been said about it. The people may rot in misery, suffer wrong without number; feel

the pangs of hunger and want; endure eviction, extermination, and other cruelties, and no

commission is instituted or empowered to inquire into their conditions. They are left to

their fate; they are consigned to the tender mercies of any one who chooses to oppress them by rackrents, and the other instruments wielded by bad landlordism.

Should such a state of things as this be permitted in a civilised country? A good and

paternal government would not endure it for a day. They would take the advice of the

humane judge, whose language we have quoted, and secure a reign of peace by disarming

oppression of the power to torture, and shielding the victim of wrong from the lash of his

tormentor.

But this is not the role adopted by our aristocratic government. They have more faith, it

would seem, in the hangman's rope, than in the labours of a commission. They carry matters with a high hand, and the result is seen in the discontent which affects one class, and the terror which alarms the other. Anxious, as we are, for the security of life and

property, and the prosperity of the tillers of the soil, we pronounce this sort of government a fatal blunder; and we tell the rulers of the country, and those who make its laws, that

they can more easily restore confidence and security by yielding to the people their rights, than by a thousand such revolting and abominable performances such as those witnessed

in Monaghan on Monday . . .59

The editor of the London Times took an anti-Catholic, if not an

anti-Christian view of the events at Monaghan:?

... At a time when there is a good deal of controversy as to the best, and surest, and

pleasantest way of getting to Heaven, our readers will thank us for informing them, on

respectable authority, of one which seems to answer these conditions. You have only to

shoot some person whose notions of property or justice have given you inconvenience, and

you will either satisfy an earthly feeling or secure a heavenly possession ? that is, you will

either escape justice, or be translated to the skies. If your landlord want his rent or his

bailiff is troublesome ? if a creditor bores you, or a magistrate has turned a deaf ear to

your pleas or your threats ? waylay him and dash out his brains, fire at him as he is

alighting from his gig on a winter's evening, or sitting with his wife and children at his

fireside, and your salvation is safe. When the lawyer has failed to extricate you altogether from the little scrape you have got into, your priest, if you are a Papist, your pastor, if you are a Protestant, will then take his place, and administer spiritual consolation, of

assurance, as it is sometimes called. It is not for us to dispute the theology of this process. The resources of the spiritual pharmacopoeia are beyond our range, and whether the drug be alternative, corrective, comforting, or narcotic, perhaps as a simple layman, it is not for

us to say when it should or should not be exhibited. We may, however, be permitted to

point out the obvious fact that this form of spiritual treatment puts the Christian religion

very much on a level with the most degrading and dangerous superstitions, and is at

variance with the plainest dictates of common sense, and the universal sentiments of the

wiser and better portion of mankind. Murder is a very henious crime, more henious by a

great deal than robbery ? itself bad enough; and it is rather remarkable that, in the awful

event yesterday commemorated by our church, our Saviour was crucified between two

thieves but instead of a murderer, who got off by favour of a bespotted mob, at the

instigation of the formal and hypocritical Pharisees. It is true one of the thieves was saved, but then he was a penitent thief, and penitent for the crime of thieving. There are

59 Idem.




theologians, however, in this age, as in that, who seem to think a man very little the worse

for bespottering the highway with the blood and brains of an improving landlord or a

conscientious magistrate, or in fact, for any remarkable crime; though, of course, now, as

of old, the flavour of all crime is considerably improved by a smack of sedition.

We are not going to repeat the horrid particulars of the Bateson murder. The gentleman was a magistrate, and the three miscreants, Brian Grant, Neal Quin, Patrick Coomey, who murdered him, were Ribbonmen, and of course, had the connivance and sympathy of

the people. Justice overtook them at last, and the account of their execution appeared in our paper of last Thursday. They are called 'unfortunate men,' for they were found out

and hung, which in Ireland is a great misadventure; but, when one proceeds with the

narrative, one does not see why they should have been called 'fortunate men'; at least they seem to have felt so themselves. With one single exception, we are told, there was not the

slightest exhibition of grief, either on their part or on the part of their friends, during the numerous interviews that passed between them. Quin parted from his newly married wife on the evening before the execution with the utmost apparent indifference to the event of

the next morning; on that morning they partook largely of an excellent breakfast: two of

them were found smoking, and all three ruffians appeared to be in the best of spirits. Some

of the spectators admitted to the prison yard having such want of tact as to condole with

them on their position, Quin and Coomey replied in the strongest terms that 'thanks to the

attention which had been paid to them by their clergymen, they were ready to meet their

God.' Coomey had 'never felt so happy as he did at that moment, with the confidence

before him, in a brief time, of meeting his Saviour.' Quin, with an inkling of sense, derived

probably from the recollection of his former backslidings, said that if a reprieve should come he would not accept it, as he 'would never be better prepared to die than he was at

that time.' Even another murder would hardly get him up to the mark. 'They both

expressed their forgiveness of their prosecutors.-' This is pleasant: and if the friends of

Grant, Quin and Coomey would join in the act of forgiveness we have no doubt that the

prosecutors would appreciate it still more. On the narrators leaving, 'the unfortunate men'

shook each of the party warmly by the hand, and expressed a hope that, when he was

about to die, he would be as fully prepared for it as they were themselves. As this exact

amount of preparation is not to be obtained except by the general massacre of landlords

and magistrates, we cannot participate in this hope. Throughout the entire conversation

Grant and Coomey 'spoke with a spirit and freedom which were perfectly astonishing

looking at their approaching end as a merchant might be supposed to do on entering on a

prosperous enterprise which would reap for him rich and glorious results.' Well, on the

hypothesis of their spiritual advisers, it was a capital spea. The way to Heaven our old

nursery books, the Bible among them, used to tell us, was narrow, thorny, rugged, and

steep. Excepting that it is just such a bit of road you would select for waylaying your landlord, this is no longer the case. We have now a royal road, or rather a railroad to

Heaven, and that is, the free indulgence of the very worst passions that happens to possess

you. Shoot the man you most hate, or commit some other outrage more congenial to your

temper, and then, in the hands of your priest, you are sure of Heaven. As the hour

approached the murderers were still more elated with the sense of their position. They were no longer content to be compared with the thieves on the cross ?

nothing but a

higher parallel would suffice. The Sub-Sheriff having unguardedly expressed himself sorry to see three men in their position, 'Sorry?' said one of them in a tone of surprise, 'why it is

glad you should be, Sir!' He then asked if they had any statement to make to him in

relation to the offence for which they were to die? 'No,' said Coomey, 'our Saviour said

nothing when He was executed.'

After this hidieous climax of blasphemy it is scarcely worth while to pursue the

disgusting narrative. When a scoundrel alleges the meek silence of our Saviour as a reason

for not confessing an atrocious murder, one stops to ask whereabouts in the civilised world

such a thing has taken place in the regular course of things, and under the ministration of an authorised clergy. That the whole was the natural result of those ministrations seems

too likely from the parting address of the Rev. Mr Smith ? 'Remember the penitent thief on the cross. In one moment you'll be in Heaven. You have eternal happiness within your reach.' Louis XVI, and our own Charles I were not addressed in more assuring terms by




men who sincerely regarded them as saints and martyrs. But is it really the doctrine of our

churches that a murderer may obtain his passport to the skies by a private arrangement with his priest, without making the smallest amends for his crime? Even the poorest and

most ignorant murderer may make some amends by public confession, and by a suitable

display of contrition for the act. If a man shows such a thorough change of heart and mind

that we may reasonably hope he would not return to his crimes if set at liberty, then, and on that ground, we may also humbly hope that he will be saved from the proper

consequences of his crime, and of his previous career, in a future world. To believe even

that much is no easy demand on one's faith, for we have to suppose a special act of grace

transforming a poor sensual, sottish, vindictive wretch into a being capable only of the

highest affections and enjoyments. But when we are further called on to believe that a

creature of this description is to be thus glorified without any real sorrow for his crimes,

any actual disgust at his former life, and any proof of a resolution to change, then we can't

help feeling that it is our credulity, rather than our faith, that is appealed to. Further, what

is the use of prisons, of executions, or of punishments of any kind, if the convict is always to be told, and held up to the world, as a saint on the threshold of Heaven ?

nay, more, in

the position of our Saviour on the cross? If the way to heaven is murder, backed up with a

sufficient amount of indifference, and with a jaunty little message of forgiveness to one's

prosecutors, why not teach the new way of life more directly, and somewhat earlier in the

peasants' career? Let us have Thuggee at once, with its worship, its priests, and its

temples. A scrupulous morality is a very uncomfortable thing; paralysing the strong,

fettering the flight of genius, filling the memory with bitter recollections, and haunting the

death-bed itself. Everybody knows how painful the spectacle which good men have

occasionally presented at the last closing scene. The clergy of Ireland, and some of this

country, appear to manage things better. For those who like it, and believe it they offer

the palm of a martyr and the crown of a saint, in return for a life of vicious indulgence and

stolid indifference . . .60

The editor of the Globe had, apparently, adopted a similar stance to that of the editor of the Times and he was taken to task by the editor of the Freeman's Journal:?

. . . Never, perhaps, was there presented to the human eye, a more remarkable illustration of the power of religion to subdue the most fierce passions, to soften the hardest hearts, and to give consolation and peace in the most trying of positions, than that presented by the record of the last moments of the three unhappy men who were recently executed in

Monaghan for the murder of Mr Bateson. Few men could read the account given by

unprejudiced witnesses of the resignation, the penitence, and prayerfulness of these wretched men, and not feel respect and admiration for the Catholic divines by whose pious ministrations this wondrous change was effected. But a little while, and these men ? if we

are to believe their conviction to be well founded ? conspired to imbrue their hands in the

blood of their fellow men. They accomplished the object of their conspiracy, and up to the

period of their conviction a reckless disregard of all the consequences of their guilt seemed to be the only and the continuous characteristic of their proceedings. Tried, found guilty, and sentenced, the law, with a merciful regard to their eternal condition, permitted that

spiritual instruction should be afforded to the wretched culprits ? and the good Bishop of

the diocese, knowing how hard a thing it is to bring the hardened sinner to contrition,

appointed for each a teacher whose duty it was to be unremitting in his labours during the

short interval permitted for repentance. The result we have seen, and the witnesses are not

the clergymen themselves ? not gentlemen prejudiced in favour of the Catholic

priesthood ? but gentlemen belonging to the public press, and to that portion of it which

rarely omits an opportunity of dealing a heavy blow at an Irish priest. Now in all this there was much to elicit from even the most hostile and atheistic





admiration for the zeal of the clergymen, and wonder at the happy fruits that resulted. The

most hardened blasphemer of Christianity must have been amazed at the wondrous effects

produced by its ministers on these three unhappy men. Bound down by penitence and

remorse they seemed at the last moment to have felt an assurance of mercy that gave them

strength almost superhuman, and enabled them to look upon death without any terrors, and to pass through the last agony apparently without an emotion of fear. Every event in

the final tragedy tended to exhibit in still brighter colours the power and efficacy of the

Christian minister to calm the troubled spirit and smooth the rugged path these men had to

tread. The victory gained over the passions, and the ascendancy asserted by religion were

all the more remarkable that they were manifested in the cases of men whose bodily health

was unimpared, and whose mental vigour was not enfeebled by disease. Yet where all

other men see only that which must elicit respect for the ministers of religion, and wonder

at the efficacy of their labours, the London organ of the government can find in the whole

scene, and in all its parts, only grounds for uttering the vilest slanders against the Catholic

priesthood ? materials from which to spell out an accusation that they are the abettors of

murder and the confederates of murderers. The penitence of the wretched was mere

hypocrisy ? a scene got up for a purpose

? an overt act in a conspiracy between dying men and the Catholic priesthood to extend agrarian crime by clothing red murder with

sanctity, and exalting the murderer before the populace to the dignity of a hero and

martyr. 'They were well drilled,' says the 'Globe,' 'in the doctrine of their church, as it is

taught in Monaghan,' and then, lest there should be any misapprehension as to his

meaning, this ministerial journalist proceeds to state in the following blasphemous terms

his views, and of course those of his employers, as to the objects of the ministrations of the

priests in this case. 'It would appear,' says the 'Globe,' 'that murder, meat, and monition

are three things which, combined, admirably prepare man for death, and for the region to

which death is the passport. Quin's last words were ? "Mary, Mother of God, receive us

? prepare Heaven for us." Evidently these three persons thought themselves qualified,

by the antecedents for the best society, and actually believed that special ministrations

were preparing their new abode for them.'

Had the Catholic priests allowed these wretched men to be strangled like dogs, and to

pass from earth to judgement with all their sins unrepented of, the government writer

might have felt more satisfaction in contemplating the fate of the wretched victims of

agrarian outrage. But having preached to the dying sinner, and brought them to

repentence, the priests are forthwith denounced as the abettors of crime, the instigators to

murder, and in terms accused of holding up the crimes and career of these men as

examples to be imitated by their Cocks!

The infamy of this slander is so atrocious as to render it almost incredible that any amount of malignity could stimulate a man or a party to utter it. We almost hesitate to

re-produce the blasphemy; yet it is so essential that the genuine sentiments of the 'Globe'

and its party should be thoroughly understood in Ireland that we reprint the concluding

paragraph of the article, from which it will be seen that we have understated, rather than

overstated, its atrocity. We will not add one word of comment:?

'Indeed, they were impatient for the journey. ? Just before the bolt was drawn

Coomey, with a meekness that moderated his impatience, said "May I now go,

gentlemen?" He would not even take steps towards Heaven without the permission of the

constituted authorities! But he went with the assurance that "in one moment he would be

in Heaven?" So the priest declared to the three men. To the crowd which surrounded the

scaffold they were thus held up as heroes and patterns for imitation. Now the unlettered

crowd would not make a very nice analysis of the career of these men; the most obvious

points were the murder and the execution ? these were the beginning and the end; and on

the authority of the best-informed amongst them, the crowd would regard the course

taken by Quin, Grant, and Coomey as a short cut to Heaven. Murder is the qualification for that school whose place of official examination is the scaffold, and whose postern the

gallows opens direct to Heaven.' . . ."61

61 Idem.




The editor of the Catholic Standard also joined in the fray:?

... In the whole course of our experience of the injustice of the Protestant press towards

Catholics, their religion, their institutions, and their clergy, we do not remember so

furious an outpouring of unprovoked virulence, even against the Irish priesthood, as that

in which our contemporaries, with one honourable exception ? the 'Morning Chronicle'

? have so shamefully indulged in their comments upon the account of the closing scene of

the unhappy men who recently suffered the extreme penalty of the law at Monaghan for

the murder of Mr Bateson. What was there in that narrative of a scene, the most painful

generally but, in that instance, the most touching that can be conceived to a Christian

heart, to arouse fanatical prejudices or call forth ungenerous reproaches and brutal

invective? Three fellow creatures were adjudged by the law to suffer an ignominious death

for the worst crime against society. The antecdents of one of them, at least, were not of a

nature to inspire sanguine hope of a contrite and penitent close; and they were all

convicted of a crime which, if the verdict was just, and there is nothing farther from our

thoughts than to question its propriety proved their consequences to be in a most

deplorable state. As they professed the Catholic religion it became the duty of their

spiritual pastor to look to their eternal interests when the world virtually closed upon them

after their doom was pronounced. Under ordinary circumstances, this serious task would have devolved upon the ordinary Catholic chaplain of the gaol. But this was not an

ordinary case. The crime of which the prisoners were convicted was a fearful one ? its source ? the foul Ribbon conspiracy is one against which the Catholic hierarchy have never ceased to inveigh, and, as already observed, the condemned were unworthy

members of the church whose ordinances they had set at nought, whose treasures of grace

they had spurned, and whose sacraments they had long ceased to frequent. Under these

circumstances, the Bishop of Clogher (than whom there does not exist in any church, or in

any country, a more estimable man or a more exemplary ecclesiastic ? and this we say, not as an idle compliment, but as the expression of a conviction founded upon a thirty years familiar acquaintance with his lordship) appointed three of his priests to attend upon the convicts, in order by their constant intercourse to bring the unhappy men to a sense of

their awful condition, and, by the aid of God's mercy, to prepare them for that great

judgement from which even the judges in this world cannot escape. The result was that ?

if we may form an opinion from their conduct in the last stage of life ? the great sinners became great penitents, and in a truly Christian manner cheerfully accepted their sentence

and sufferings as the just punishment of their sins. Had this been all, the probability is that we should have heard no more of the subject. But the convicts committed in their last

earthly scene a crime which, in Protestant estimation, is darker and more damnable than murder. They invoked the name of Mary, and solicited her pious intercession with her Divine Son! What more was necessary to unsluice the floodgates of Protestant antipathy, and call down upon the convicts and their indefatigable spiritual counsellers and comforters the bitterest censures of the anti-Catholic journals? They did not die as mock

heroes; there was no levity, and no sullenness in their demeanour on the scaffold; and they patiently resigned their bodies to the executioner, in the hope of a happy resurrection, and

they died forgiving all the world, beseeching the Divine forgiveness for themselves, and

invoking the blessed names of Jesus and Mary. And is this, we ask, a justification for the torrent of foul abuse and most malevolent misrepresentation that has rushed upon the Irish clergy en masse ?

through the pages of our contemporaries, especially the malignant Whig 'Globe' whose bitterness is manifestly tinged with the bile of despairing apostacy? Is

it a crime in a priest to labour in his vocation of bringing sinners to repentance? Is the

performance of their religious duties by Catholics, in the form prescribed by their church, a legitimate subject for newspaper denunciation in this country? We must own that this is not the way in which 'this Protestant country' as the evangelists call England can expect to

gain the confidence of foreign Catholic States with which she is now coveting an active and intimate alliance, or to enlist the sympathies of her own Catholic inhabitants. We cannot

dismiss this subject without adverting to an incident connected with it, which ought to have made our contemporaries more cautious in their allusions to the murder of Mr. Bateson.




The three men who suffered for that crime last week were not the first who were accused

and tried for that offence. Two brothers named Kelly were three times arraigned upon that capital charge, by three separate Attorney-Generals, who strained every ingenuity and every nerve to procure a conviction. Twice the Juries disagreed, the third time the

unfortunate men were acquitted. On each of these occasions we distinctly remember that

everyone of the Protestant journals, that have disgraced the press by their abominable

tirades against the Irish priesthood, indulged in the most truculent invectives against the

whole population of Ireland, because, as now appears, judicial murder was then

committed . . ,62

The editor of the Dundalk Democrat had the last word on 'the

theologians of the press':?

. . . There is no use whatever in the Irishman attempting to escape the ridicule of the

English press. Be he rich or be he poor, be he orderly or be he disorderly, be he strong or

weak, gloomy or joyous, living or dying, he is pursued by that audacious press, and his acts

and his motives misrepresented to the world.

On last Monday week three unfortunate men were strangled in the front of Monaghan

gaol, pursuant to the sentence passed upon them. ? English law triumphed, and was

permitted 'to take its course.' The hangman put his rope round the necks of the victims, drew the bolt, and launched them into eternity. One might think that this would have

satisfied the monsters who write for some of the London journals, and that having gloated over the death-struggle, they would rest satisfied. But your morbid John Bull is not so

easily appeased. ? When he thirsts for vengeance, he must have more than blood, more

than torture, and more than death. And accordingly, the 'Times' and the 'Globe' have

taken to ridicule the clergymen who laboured diligently and unceasingly to prepare the

convicts for meeting their Creator; to ridicule their faith, and the language and demeanour

of the convicts, and everything they did and said. The 'Globe' in noticing the subject,

says? 'Indeed, they (the prisoners) were impatient for the journey. Just before the bolt

was drawn Coomey, with a meekness that moderated his impatience, said "May I

now go, gentlemen?" He would not even take steps to-wards Heaven without the

permission of the constituted authorities!'

Now, what does all this, made so remarkable by the London writer, amount to? Does it

contain anything worthy of censure; anything prudent men should condemn? John Bull

thinks it does, for he would scorn to ask any man's permission to meet death, and would

laugh at the notion of asking a clergyman whether he might resign himself to the

executioner. He would do the thing independently or not at all. But the 'Globe' further

says? 'He went with the assurance that "in one moment he would be in Heaven?" So the

priest declared to the three men.'

The priest, we are confident, made no such declaration, except conditionally. He

pictured to them the penitent thief on the cross, and how the crucified Saviour promised that he would be with him that day in Paradise; he told them that salvation was within their

reach if they felt deeply and heartily sorry for their sins, and possessed contrite and

humble hearts. That the convicts had been impressed with the truths of religion; that they had sought and implored pardon of God, and that their minds were calmed down by the

influence of divine grace, and a change of heart effected, very few will doubt, who have

read of their wonderful firmness in the hour when stout hearts and strong nerves shudder at the approach of death, and when nothing but deep contrition and heart-felt sorrow, and an humble hope of forgiveness can bring calmness to the mind.

We thought it strange that the 'Times' or 'Globe' would hesitate a moment in believing that Heaven was within the reach of Quin, Grant, and Coomey. We thought that the





religious doctrines they taught were, 'that faith cleanseth from all sin, and that faith alone

is sufficient to obtain salvation.' But it would seem that although they believe this

applicable to themselves, they would not permit it to extend to the Monaghan convicts.

Ah! these public instructors know nothing of the influence of the Catholic religion, or its

effect on the human heart, when brought home to it through the sacrament of penance. The 'Times,' in its brutal remarks on the language of the convicts to those who had

visited them, deals with the unfortunate men in the most ruffianly manner. Let us see

whether this language deserves the reprobation cast upon it by this exponent of John

Bullism. Some persons from the Belfast press, very improperly admitted to see them at

such a time, having expressed regret at their position, Quin and Coomey replied, 'thanks

to the attention which had been paid to them by their clergymen, they were ready to meet

their God.' And Coomey said, 'never had he felt so happy as he did at that moment, with

the confidence before him, in a brief time, of meeting his Saviour.' The 'Times,' we

suppose would have them fall into a state of despair and tell them to distrust the mercy of

God, a thing which the Catholic Church pronounces a heinous sin. But that was not their

condition, for they exhibited 'fruits worthy of penance', in forgiving their persecutors, and

humbly imploring God's mercy and pardon for themselves.

It is only the ministers of the Catholic Church who achieve, with God's assistance, such

triumphs over the hardest hearts. A man named Holman was hanged a few days since in

Cornwall, for the murder of his wife, and shortly before his death he made a confession of

his crime. No Catholic clergyman attended him to prepare him for death, and the

consequence was, that 'during the time he was in prison awaiting his execution he

remained unmoved, eating and drinking and sleeping as though nothing was going to

happen!!' What does the 'Times' think of that condition on the eve of death? Was it more

becoming than that exhibited by the penitent convicts of Monaghan, who were placed under the instructions of the calumniated priests; who did think that something 'was about to happen,' and who made preparations to meet the fate that awaited them. We should

rather see the signs and marks of repentance exhibited by them, than behold Holman

'eating, drinking and sleeping as though nothing was going to happen.' With respect to the vile insinuation of the 'Globe' and the 'Times,' that the priest 'held

up the convicts to the crowd that surrounded the scaffold, as heroes and patterns for

imitation,' we denounce it as one of the most malignant and abominable slanders that ever

was penned. It is said that these London newspapers embody the thoughts, the feelings, and wishes of the great body of the English people; and if such be the fact, is it any wonder

that they have sanctioned the murders, the robberies, the breaches of honour committed

by their government in Ireland in other days; is it any wonder that they sanction murder,

robbery and infamy in India to-day, and is it astonishing that the abominations of Sodom are practised amongst them; that they are steeped in ignorance, overwhelmed in sin, the name of the Saviour known to them only in blasphemy, and that when a murderer lies in

prison awaiting the execution of the sentence of death, he is found 'eating, and drinking and sleeping as though nothing was going to happen?' . . .63

Of the six other prisoners charged with having conspired to murder Thomas Bateson, 80-year-old Bernard Rooney

? reported as being in

hospital very ill64 in 1852 ? died in custody65 some time before the

Monaghan Spring Assizes of 1854, while William McArdle and Edward McGuinness stood trial on three occasions66 for their alleged part in the

crime, the jury disagreeing on each occasion. Discharging the prisoners

63 Dundalk Democrat, 22.4.1854. 64 Dundalk Democrat, 4.12.1852. 65 Dundalk Democrat, 1.4.1854. 66 Dundalk Democrat, 1.4.1854; 22.7.1854; 10.3.1855.




from custody, on bail, at the Monaghan Spring Assizes of 1855, Judge Jackson said:?

. . . You have been a long time under this charge, suffered a lengthened imprisonment and

have been in great jeopardy of your lives. The juries who have from time to time been

empannelled in the case have not been able to come to any agreement, some deeming you to be not guilty, others thinking you guilty. No one, under those circumstances, is entitled

to impute guilt to you. I exhort you all not to afford in future any ground for a similar

charge. You are not as yet exonerated from this present charge. The awful charge still

hangs over you. I exhort you to keep clear, during the remainder of your lives, of that

unlawful and abominable confederacy which undoubtedly has its existence in this country, and which has given rise to dreadful crimes and has led to the taking away of the lives of

innocent men. If any of you have been members of this conspiracy, I implore of you to

take no further part in it and to abandon it forever. You may now return to your homes

and I exhort you all to be peaceable and loyal subjects for the rest of your lives . . ,67

At the end of the Monaghan Spring Assizes of 1855, the Dundalk Democrat correctly predicted

? This will probably be the last of the trials connected with the Bateson tragedy'.68

Appendix l

CORRESPONDENCE RE MEMORIALS OF QUINN AND GRANT FAMILIES69

John Reilly, Solicitor, Monaghan to Thomas Larcom, Under?

secretary, Dublin Castle, 3.4.1854:?

... I beg to transmit to you for the consideration of his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant

two memorials. I request you will be so good as to have them submitted to his Excellency at your earliest convenience as the day fixed for the execution of the prisoners mentioned

in them is this day week . . .

Patrick, John, Catherine and Rose Quinn, Annaghmare, to Charles Granville Elliott, Lord Lieutenant, Dublin Castle:?

. . . The memorial of Catherine Quinn, widow, Patrick Quinn and John Quinn, farmers, and Rose Quinn . . . That memorialists are respectively the mother, brothers and wife of

Neil Quinn, a prisoner in the Gaol of Monaghan under sentence of death. That

memoralists have been informed and believe it to be true that under the laws of England the body of the same Neil Quinn after execution cannot be given up to his relatives for

Christian burial, but must be interred within the precincts of the prison. That the said Neil

Quinn was a farmer holding a farm of about 30 acres and whose father held a farm

exceeding 40 acres and of a family and people considered respectable as country farmers.

That these memorialists desire that the body of the said Neil Quinn may be given up to

them, his mother, wife and kindred, that his remains may be interred with his people

according to the rites of his church. That these memorialists deeply deplore the events

which have rendered necessary this appeal to your Excellency's clemency and pledge themselves to make no improper use of the clemency sought to be granted to them.

67 Dundalk Democrat, 10.3.1855. 68 Idem. 69

ISPO, Convict Papers, 1854.




Memorialists therefore humbly pray your Excellency that your Excellency in the exercise

of the Royal Prerogative and of your clemency will be pleased to abate the rigour of the

law as so far as to permit to be delivered up to your memorialists the body of the said Neil

Quinn when dead that his remains may receive a Christian burial among his relatives and

people . . .

Bridget, Margaret, Catherine, Mary, Bridget and Christopher Grant, Corliss, to Charles Gran ville Elliott, Lord Lieutenant, Dublin Castle:?

. . . The memorial of Bridget Grant on behalf of herself and of Margaret, Catherine, Mary and Bridget Grant, minors, children of Bryan Grant, and of Christopher Grant, farmer, brother of the said Brian Grant . . . That memorialists are respectively the wife, children

and only brother of Brian Grant, a prisoner in the Gaol of Monaghan at present under

sentence of death. That memorialists have been informed and believe that the body of the

said Brian Grant cannot under the existing law be given up to his relatives for the purpose of interment. That memorialists Bridget and Catherine are the only adult relatives of the

said Brian Grant and memorialist Bridget is his wife and the mother of his four little girls. That memorialists on their own account and on behalf of the four young children of the

said Brian Grant desire that his body may be given up to them for interment in

consecrated ground among his relatives and people. That memorialists deeply deplore the

events which have rendered necessary this appeal to the clemency of the Crown and

pledge themselves not to make any improper use of your Excellency's mercy should the

humble prayer of their memorial be granted. Memorialists on their own behalf and that of

the four infant children of the said Brian Grant pray your Excellency that in your mercy and in the exercise of the Royal Prerogative in you vested you will be pleased to grant to

memorialists the body of the said Brian Grant that same be interred with the deceased

members of his family and kindred . . .

William Jebb, Crown Office, Monaghan to John Young, Chief

Secretary, Dublin Castle, 4.4.1854:?

... In reply to a communication received from the Castle this morning, I beg to inform

you that the execution of Grant, Quin and Coomey has been fixed to take place on Friday next the 10th instant and the warrants for that purpose have been delivered to the Sheriff of the County . . .

Judge Richard Greene, Dublin to Thomas Larcom, Under-Secretary, Dublin Castle, 5.4.1854:?

. . . I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 4th inst.,

transmitting two memorials, praying that the bodies of Neal Quin and Bryan Grant, who

are under sentence of death, may be delivered to their relatives after execution, and

requesting my opinion thereon for the information of his Excellency, the Lord Lieutenant.

Neal Quin and Bryan Grant were convicted before me at the late Assizes for the County of

Monaghan, upon very clear evidence, of the murder of the late T. D. Bateson, Esq., I am

not aware of any circumstances in the case which would warrant me in recommending the

omission of any part of the punishment prescribed by the Statute in cases of murder . . .

Charles Granville Elliott, Lord Lieutenant, Dublin Castle, 6.4.1854:?

... I see no reason for remitting any portion of the sentences . . .




John Swanzy, Under-Sheriff, Monaghan, to Thomas Larcom, Under-Secretary, Dublin Castle, 10.4.1854:?

. . . The sentence upon Neal Quin, Bryan Grant and Patrick Coomey was this day carried into effect by their execution at the Gaol here,-pursuant to that sentence . . .

Appendix 2

The Informers/'Crown Witnesses'

Extracts from the Crown Solicitor's Letter Book & Entries of Payments,? 1852-1855:?

25.5.1852 ... To Sub-Inspector Mark Bloxham, Castleblayney, ?1 ls lOd, to enable him to

discharge the demand for clothing furnished to Crown witness, John Casey, 2nd January 1852 . . .

20.11.1852 . . . To Charles Hunt, R.M., Monaghan, ?20 9s 6d, to pay for support of Bernard

Brennan, Crown witness, in Dr. Steevens' Hospital, from 27th June to 12th November, inst. . . .

24.11.1852 . . . To Charles Hunt, R.M., Monaghan, ?4 3s 6d, to pay for the support of Crown

witness, Bernard Brennan, ?1 ls lOd & medical attendance ?3 ls 8d, to the 20th inst. . .

1.12.1852 . . . To Charles Hunt, R.M., Monaghan, ?2 5s Od, for the support and clothing of

Bernard Brennan, ? ? to 27 inst. . . .

5.1.1853 . . . Sir, With reference to your report of the 20th ult. relative to the Crown witness,

Bernard Brennan, I am directed to inform you that instructions have been given that he

shall be maintained and that every protection shall be afforded him . . .

9.2.1853 . . . ?10 to Robert Mills/?5 to James Mooney as compensation for his loss of time whilst

detained under support as a witness in the case of the Queen V Owen Kelly . . .

9.4.1853 ... To Sub-Inspector Mark Bloxham, Castleblayney, ?3 to reimburse him for expenses incurred for outfit of James Mooney, a Crown witness . . .

7.5.1853 ... To the Sub-Inspector, Castleblayney, ?1 16s 9d, expenses incurred in purchasing

clothing for families of Crown witnesses, Patrick Nougher and Patrick Brennan . . .

30.7.1853 ... To Sub-Inspector Mark Bloxham, Castleblayney, ?5 3s 6d, discharge of his account

for the support of the family of Patrick Brennan, a Crown witness . . .

70 ISPO.




10.8.1853 ... To John McCutcheon, Armagh Jail, ?7 5s 2d, expenses of attendance at Monaghan

Assizes & conveyance of Patrick Nougher to & from the Assizes . . .

7.9.1853 . . . To Sub-Inspector Mark Bloxham, Castleblayney, ?1 11s 6d, to discharge account of

expenses incurred in providing clothing for Elizabeth Nougher, Crown, & her infant child

... To John McCutcheon, Armagh Jail, ?10 10s 8d, support of Patrick Nougher, Crown

witness, to 31 July last . . .

6.1.1854 ... To John McCutcheon, Armagh Jail, ?2 10s 2d, a suit of clothing for Patrick Nougher,

a Crown witness . . .

13.4.1854 ... To John McCutcheon, Armagh Jail, ?16 4s Od, for the support of Patrick Nougher, a

Crown witness, from 1 April 1853 to 31 March 1854 . . .

17.5.1854 ... To Charles Hunt, R.M., Monaghan, ?10, for private information relative to the

conspiracy to murder the late Mr. Bateson . . .

... To Charles Hunt, R.M., Monaghan, ?10, being ?5 for the use of Francis Hanratty, a

Crown witness in the case of the Queen V McArdle & others & ?5 for Bernard Brennan, a

Crown witness in the same case, to be applied under instructions given to Mr. Hunt . . .

25.5.1854 ... To Richard Mitchell, Bridewell-Keeper, Castleblayney, ?2 2s 8d, for the support of

James Mooney, a Crown witness, from 21 February 1853 to the 25 March 1853, inclusive .

9.6.1854 ... To Sub-Inspector Mark Bloxham, Castleblayney, ?7 18s 3d, in discharge of the

account for oatmeal furnished for the support of the family of Crown witness, Francis

Hanratty . . .

4.8.1854 ... To John McCutcheon, Armagh Jail, ?11 13s 8d, for the support of Patrick Nougher

for three months, until 31 July 1854 . . .

5.8.1854 . . . Sir, I am directed by the Lord Lieutenant to inform you that arrangements have been

made for the removal of Patrick Nougher from Armagh Jail to the jail at Lifford, there to

be maintained as a Crown witness at Government expense . . .

30.8.1854 ... To John McCutcheon, Armagh Jail, ?5 14s 6d, expenses incurred in the transmission

of Patrick Nougher, Crown witness, from Armagh to Lifford . . .

10.10.1854 ... To Sub-Inspector Mark Bloxham, Castleblayney, ?6 9s Od, to discharge account for

meal for the support of Francis Hanratty's family, Crown witness, in the case of Queen V

McArdle and others . . .

4.11.1854 ... To Mary Louth, Crown witness, ?5, as recommended in your report of the 1st inst. . . .




6.2.1855 ... To Patrick McMahon, Esq., through Head-Constable Richard McHales, Liverpool,

?3, information given by him which led to the arrest of Patrick Cooney (Coomey?) . . .

3.4.1855 . . .?11 8s 6d to Sub-Inspector M. Bloxham, Castleblayney, for meal supplied to the wife

and children of Francis Hanratty, Crown witness . . .

18.4.1855 . . . ?15 16s Od to Governor of the Jail, Lifford, for the support of Patrick Nogher, a

Crown witness, from 16th August 1854 to 9th April 1855, inclusive . . .

25.4.1855 ... ?1 19s 7d to Sub-Inspector Bloxham, Castleblayney, to provide outfits for Elizabeth

Nogher, Anne Nogher, Thomas Maguill, Michael Nogher and Catherine Nogher, the

family of Patrick Nogher, a Crown witness . . .

8.6.1855 . . . ?30 to Thomas (Francis ?) Hanratty, ?60 to Bernard Brennan, through Sub-Inspector

M. Bloxham, Castleblayney, for their services as Crown witnesses in the case of the

Bateson murder . . .

18.7.1855 ... ?8 5s Id to Sub-Inspector Mark Bloxham, Castleblayney, for, the support of the

following Crown witnesses during the month of July, 1855, viz., Bernard Brennan, Francis

Hanratty, Mary Brennan, Elizabeth Brennan, Frances Brennan, ? ? Brennan . . .

8.8.1855 . . . ?39 to Mr. Miley (Passage Broker), per Captain Kerr, Emigration Agent, Custom

House, for the passages of Patk. Nogher and wife and family to Quebec . . .

. . . ?12 to Sub-Inspector William Henry, Ballymena, cost of outfits for the above-named

family . . .

11.8.1855 ... ?3 16s 6d to Sub-Inspector M. Bloxham, Castleblayney, for meal for the family of

Crown witness, Hanratty, who has been discharged (case of Queen V McArdle) . . .

7.6.1855 . . . ?50 to George Fitzmaurice, R.M., Coll?n, for private information received by him in

case of the murder of Mr. Bateson . . .

Extracts from Registered Papers71, 1856:?

2.7.1855

Henry to Inspector-General . . . Ballymena ... I beg to state that Patk. Nogher, a Crown witness in the case of the

murder of Mr. Bateson, has been here since the 11th April, and his family since the 6th

May, and I have not yet received any money for them. I have advanced to him a sum of

?11 6s 6d and therefore request that I may be paid that amount and some money sent to

me for them . . .

18.7.1855

Minute on this letter

71 ISPO.



Seanchas Ard M hacha 215

. . . Request Captain Kerr will provide passage to Quebec for the Nogher family, giving

their names and ages ...?

19.7.1855

Minute on this letter . . . That the ages of the children be given. Request also report of the outfits that will be

required and the amount already expended upon this family . . .

28.7.1855

Henry to County Inspector, Monaghan . . .

Ballymena ... I beg to state that I have enquired from Nogher & he states that a suit of clothes and shirts (?) will be required for himself, his wife, his sister and for each of the children. I cannot say what the total amount was that was expended on this family, not since they came here. I have reed. ?18 14s 8d for them on the 17th July. The ages of the children are given below . . . Patk. Nogher, age 37 yrs., father; Betty Nogher, 33 yrs.,

mother; children ? Michael Nogher, 13 yrs., Catherine, 10 yrs., Bridget, 7 yrs., Anne, 5

yrs., Betty, 1 yr. 10 months; Nancy Nogher, 34 yrs., sister; Thos. Maguill, 15 yrs., her son. I have just now been informed that they will require new (?) clothes, as they have none . . .

Extracts from Index, Registered Papers,72 1855-1856:?

6.8.1855 . . . Trans, estimate of outfit for Nogher family & expl. of delay. Passage to Quebec for

Nogher family at cost of ?39 . . .

7.8.1855 . . . Authorise C. S., N. E. Circuit, to pay Miley, through Kerr, ?39, also ?12 for outfit. . .

That the family be in town by 10th inst. to report to Miley . . .

Extracts from Index, Registered Papers,73 1856:?

30.6.1856 (1855?) . . . Bernard Brennan . . .

Praying for further assistance . . .

10.7.1856 (1855?) . . .

Support of Bernard Brennan, Francis Hanratty, Mary, Robert, Eliza and ? ? Brennan . . .

Pay ?8 5s Id for their support . . .

27.7.1856 (1855?) . . . Let notice be given to Brennan that he will be discharged on the 15th August and on

that day discharge him . . .

20.8.1856 (1855?) . . .

Regarding Bernard Brennan ... To procure passage . . .

27.8.1856 (1855?) . . .

Captain Kerr . . . Requiring to know what part of Australia Brennan family are to be

sent to before proceeding to engage passage . . . The point which first ship affording proper accommodation sails . . .

1.9.1856 (1855?) . . .

Captain Kerr . . . Notify that he has procured passages to Australia for Brennan family

at cost of ?56. They must be in Dublin to proceed to Liverpool . . .

72 ISPO. 73 ISPO.




? 9.1856 (1855?) . . . Relative to statement of Brennan as to inability to be in readiness to embark for

Australia on 10th instant . . . Brennan to be informed that his passages will be forfeited

unless in Dublin by 10th instant . . .

10.9.1856 (1855?) . . . Submit report of S. I. Bloxham of Brennan's inability to proceed immediately to

Dublin for embarkation to Australia . . . Passage for Brennan family to be postponed and

next opportunity communicated to his Excellency . . .

11.9.1856 (1855?) . . . Relative to postponement of passage to Australia, Brennan family

. . . Inform

Brennan passage postponed till October . . .

21.9.1856 (1855?) . . . Brennan declines going to Australia . . .

Passage will not be required . . .

12.10.1856 (1855?) . . . Report on Bernard Brennan . . . His Excellency cannot comply with application

. . .

Letter to Brennan . . .

Appendix 3

Crime and Outrage Commission : Extracts from Evidence74

In 1852, the Government set up a Select Committee ? the Crime and

Outrage Committee ? to enquire into the causes of crime and outrage in Counties Armagh, Louth and Monaghan. The Bateson murder and

conditions on the Templeton estate were investigated by the Crime and

Outrage Committee and a number of witnesses gave evidence.

Extracts from evidence of Edward Golding, Castleblayney, a

Monaghan magistrate and agent of the Templeton estate, 30.3.1852:?

Q. Are you a magistrate of the County of Monaghan? A. I am.

Q. Do you reside in Castleblayney? A. Yes.

Q. Have you been long acquainted with the state of the County of Monaghan? A. Yes, since I have been resident at Castleblayney. Q. Have you been long connected as agent with any properties in the County of

Monaghan? A. Yes, I have, largely. Q. You are now agent of the property of which the late Mr. Bateson was agent, are you

not?

A. I am.

Q. Has your attention been drawn much to the working of the Ribbon system in the

County of Monaghan? A. Yes, it has of late very much.

Q. And to the different crimes that have been committed in connection with that

system?

74 Report from the Select Committee on Outrages, Ireland, 1852 (Copy in National

Library of Ireland).




A. Yes.

Q. Could you state to the Committee your opinion of the immediate cause of those

crimes generally ? is there anything in the state of the tenantry, or in the dealings

between landlord and tenant, that seems to you to have led to the commission of

those crimes?

A. With regard to murder, I have particularly investigated the cases of Mr. Mauleverer

and Mr. Bateson, and I could not find anything in their dealings as between landlord

and tenant that led me to suppose that that was the immediate cause of the murders.

Q. Have the rights of property been enforced with harshness?

A. Not on the Templeton property . . . The very year previously to Mr. Bateson's

murder he interceded with Lord Templeton, and got a large abatement of rent, and

there was a large sum of money expended annually in the improvement of the

property entirely amongst the tenantry. Q. How much was the abatement?

A. Three shillings in the pound. Mr. Bateson was actually at the time of his murder

seeking for the same indulgence to the tenants this year as had been granted the year before . . .

Q. What is the general condition of the tenantry there?

A. It is various. Some are highly respectable and industrious, and there are some

townlands that are peopled by an opposite class altogether . . .

Q. Are you a native of this district?

A. I am a native of the County of Antrim.

Q. But you have lived there for 12 years? A. Yes.

Q. Have you found much change in the condition of the district during those 12 years, as

to the population? A. Their numbers are very much diminished, nearly a third.

Q. Do you observe any change in their condition?

A. I think that the immediate labourer is rather better off than he used to be . . .

Q. What is the size of the Templeton property? A. Somewhere about 12,000 acres . . .

Q. Does the tenant-right prevail in that district ? a tenant being allowed by the agent or

the proprietor to sell his interest?

A. Yes, it does, and it did to a very large extent . . .

Q. Do you think that the Roman Catholic clergymen in your district have, as much as

men could be expected to do, exercised a judicious influence in order to soothe the

feelings of the people, and prevent the outrages which have taken place from time to

time?

A. There was a very large reward offered at the time that Mr. Bateson was murdered, for the purpose of apprehending the murderer. Upwards of ?3,000 was subscribed.

There was not the name of any Roman Catholic clergyman to that list, but when a

sum of money was raised for the defence, a Roman Catholic clergyman subscribed

himself, and also exhorted his hearers to do the same . . .

Q. Has there been any reduction on the Templeton property since the murder?

A. No ... It was the opinion that if it was done it would be like holding out a premium to

assassination . . .

Q. When you state that a Roman Catholic clergyman subscribed himself, and also

exhorted his hearers to do the same, is that a matter within your own knowledge? A. No. It was a matter I was told of . . .

Q. You have been asked by the Committee as to the name of that Roman Catholic

gentleman? A. I have . . .

Q. Do you feel any objection to disclose his name to the Committee?

A. I would rather not.

Q. Upon what grounds do you feel a difficulty about disclosing his name?

A. I stated before to the Committee that I consider that my life is at this moment in

imminent peril, and if I were to sav here what might afterwards be reported and




interpreted as against any particular persons, it might add very much to my

insecurity, I think . . .

Q. Is the land of that district, taking a circle of ten miles around you, in the hands of

Protestant proprietors or Roman Catholic proprietors? A. Generally speaking, in the hands of Protestant proprietors. Q. Is four-fifths of it in the hands of Protestant proprietors? A. Fully that, or more.

Q. Nine tenths of it?

A. I should say so . . .

Q. You stated that a great deal of sympathy has been shown by the people in those

districts where crime has occurred?

A. Yes.

0. Are you aware that that sympathy is partaken of by persons of various creeds? A. Yes, I stated so.

Q. By Protestants as well as Roman Catholics?

A. I think latterly, to a great extent, it has been partaken of by many occupiers of both

persuasions. Q. Do you attribute these outrages in a great measure to the relations which exist

between landlord and tenant in that country? A. I think that the outrages have generally a good deal to do with the occupation of land,

not solely. 0. But you think that the present relationship between landlord and tenant contributes

in a great measure to the unfortunate state of things that exist?

A. I think that the Roman Catholic conspiracy has fastened itself upon that thing now. I

stated that I thought a sympathy was entertained towards the perpetrators of these

outrages by others than Roman Catholics . . .

Extracts from evidence of Fr James McMeel,75 P.P., Castleblayney, 4.5.1852:?

Q. Are you a Roman Catholic clergyman at Castleblayney? A. I am.

75 1801 : born Errigal Truagh, Co. Monaghan; 1825 : ordained, Maynooth; 1825 : C.C. Dromore, for a short time; 1825-1830 : C.C. Carrickmacross; 1830-1838 : C.C. Donaghmoyne, 1836-1838 : Adm. Donaghmoyne; 1838-1861 : P.P. Muckno, 1844 : Canon, 1858 : Archdeacon; 1861-1882 : P.P. Enniskillen, where he built St Michael's Church and'where he is buried

(Rev. P. Gallagher, C.C. Dromore). See also Parishes of Clogher (McKenna), Vol. ii, pp. 207-8.

Extracts from Dundalk Democrat re attempt on his life:?

16.1.1858. '. . . Yesterday evening the town of Dundalk was startled by a report that the

good and amiable parish priest of Castleblayney had been attacked and desperately wounded by a drunken ruffian named Patrick McArdle, who assailed him with a butcher's

knife, inflicting several dangerous wounds, and that the Rev. Gentleman's life was in

imminent danger . . . The following is the letter of our Castleblayney correspondent

. . .

We understand McArdle has lately returned from Australia . . . Castleblayney, Jan. 15,

1858. One of the most atrocious and cowardly attempts which it is the lot of the public

journalist to record, took place today (Friday) at Castleblayney, in an attack upon the life

of the Rev. James McMeel, P.P., and were it not that the providence of God, under whose

care the Rev. gentleman appears to have been, interposed, he must have fallen a victim to

the wretch who attempted his life. A person of the name of Pat McArdle, it appears, from

an early hour this morning, made enquiries of several persons concerning the person of

Mr. McMeel ? what sort of person he was, where did he generally frequent and several




Q. You are the parish priest? A. I am.

Q. Is your district an extensive one?

A. It is. The parish is six miles in length by three in width.

Q. Have you been long parish priest of that district?

A. Fourteen years. Q. Is it within that district that the crimes which have been lately mentioned have

occurred?

A. The murder of Mr. Bateson occurred in my own parish. Q. Do you recollect a reward having been offered for the apprehension of the murderers

of Mr. Bateson?

A. I do. I saw it on the police barrack and I saw it in the newspapers.

Q. Did you hear of persons having got up a subscription for the purpose of giving a

reward, in addition to the Government reward, for the apprehension of the

murderers?

A. I heard that some of the leading shopkeepers and persons living in Castleblayney had

annexed certain small sums to their names as an additional reward.

Q. Did any person ever ask you to join in that subscription? A. Never.

other questions of the like nature. And at the hour of noon on the same day, in the

immediate vicinity of the town ... he fell upon the innocent priest of God and inflicted

five large and dangerous wounds upon his person. The Rev. gentleman defended himself

heroically against the ruffian and all praise is due to the workmen at the chapel for their

prompt assistance on the trying occasion. I forgot to state the Rev. gentleman was on his

way home after stopping some time with the workmen, who were putting up piers at the

gate of the new Catholic Church, the assassin having dogged his steps beyond the metal

bridge over the railway. Mr. McMeel turned, thinking the wretch wanted to speak to him, when he deliberately plunged a butcher's knife into him, wounding him in five or six

places. A desperate struggle for life ensued and the murderer was fully kept from effecting his purpose by the unprecedented exertions of Mr. McMeel, until assistance came up.

Bryan Hand, James Kilpatrick, Owen Duffy and George Bennet, workmen at the chapel, after a great deal of exertion on their part to rescue Father McMeel, ultimately knocked

down the murderer, took the knife out of his hands and brought him a prisoner to the

police authorities, where he was fully committed to take his trial at the ensuing Monaghan Assizes ... It appears that no conspiracy, no combination has in this instance . . . been at

the root of it. . . The matter ... is so wrapped up in mystery that no person can unravel it. . . The grief which the melancholy news of his assassination first brought to the inhabitants

was a little cheered by the intelligence from the surgeon, Dr. Irwin, that his life was not in

danger . . .'

23.1.1858 '. . . We are happy to learn that the Rev. Mr. McMeel is out of danger . . . The

wretched assassin is still in Castleblayney Bridewell and, as soon as Mr. McMeel is able to

give his evidence, he will be committed for trial . . .'

30.1.1858 '. . . We are proud to state that the respected parish priest of Castleblayney has been able to leave his bed and is fast recovering from the recent savage attack made

upon his life. We believe McArdle has been committed for trial . . .'.

6.3.1858 '. . . McArdle, the ruffian who assaulted the Rev. Mr. McMeel, and did his utmost to take his life, has pleaded guilty, and Judge Perrin sentenced him to penal servitude for four years. There is not a sane man in the country who does not feel

astonished at this sentence. We do not impugn the motives of the Judge, nor are we an

advocate for excessive punishment, but we think that the lightest penalty which McArdle

should pay for his murderous outrage on the Rev. Mr. McMeel is transportation for life . .

Had a landlord been attacked in a similar manner, the assailant would have been

sentenced to swing on the gallows . . . McArdle is a violent character who, it appears, has

played the part of a 'rowdy' in America and Australia and, in four years more, he is to be

again let loose on society . . .'




Q. Did you hear that any subscription was raised for the purpose of defending the

persons who were accused of the murder of Mr. Bateson? A. I heard, after the Special Commission was ordered or issued, that there was a

collection for the defence of the prisoners, inasmuch as having applied to the Crown for legal advice, it was refused.

Q. Do you say that having applied to the Crown for legal advice, it was refused? A. They were refused legal aid . . .

Q. Did you subscribe to the defence of those persons? A. Not a farthing. Q. Have you heard that it was stated that a clergyman of the district had so subscribed? A. I did . . .

Q. As far as you are concerned, is it true or untrue that you subscribed to that fund? A. It is quite untrue.

Q. Are you aware whether or not the bishops and archbishops of the Roman Catholic church have taken any steps to discourage and to discountenance the belonging to secret societies in Ireland among the people?

A. I know that they have on every occasion which occurred to them, by pastorals and

otherwise, discountenanced and discouraged illegal societies . . .

Q. ... Have you yourself published those pastorals from the altar? A. I have published them from the altar . . .

Q. Have you commented on the pastoral of your own bishop and discountenanced crime in addresses from the altar?

A. Always. Q. Crime has been connected, in the evidence before this Committee and otherwise,

with a society called the Ribbon Society. To what do you attribute the origin of that

society? A. As far as I am enabled to know the origin of it, it was simply got up as a mutual

society for the support and defence of each other in antagonism to Orangeism. Q. Does the Orange Society exist at present in the north of Ireland?

A. I believe it does.

Q. Does it exist in your district?

A. I am told that it does.

Q. To what cause do you attribute the commission of those crimes which have occurred in your neighbourhood and in neighbouring districts?

A. Really, as far as I am able to judge the cause, or to assign a cause, it arose altogether from the high letting of land and the people, consequently, being unable to pay the

high rents, they were evicted, and when they were evicted, I have no doubt they endeavoured to have revenge on those whom they considered were the cause of the

misfortune of their being evicted.

Q. Do you conceive that the lands are let at high rents in your district? A. The lands generally in my district are let at the letting of 20 years ago, when the price

of produce was high and when there was no failure in potatoes or any other kind of

crop. Q. In what state is the land when it is let to tenants in your district ... is it drained and

fenced and are farm buildings built on it by the landlord?

A. No such thing is ever done in my part of the country by the landlord.

Q. Does the landlord lay out money with a view of keeping up buildings or fences or in

repairs? A. Not a shilling that I am aware of.

Q. Have all those things to be done by the tenant?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know of many cases of ejectment being brought in that district in which these crimes have occurred?

A. In my own district, in Castleblayney, on the property with which the late Mr. Bateson was connected, I know that a great many ejectments have been issued.

Q. Do you know of your own knowledge any case of ejectment in your district, and on

Mr. Bateson's property, which you will consider one of extreme hardship?




A. I do.

Q. Will you mention any one such case to the Committee?

A. I know one case which I witnessed of three families living together in one house.

They were brothers. Two of them were married and had families and the other was a

single man. I was passing by on clerical duty and I saw them turned out. I enquired what was the cause of their being turned out and I was informed that they had been

served with an ejectment for two years' rent that was due from them.

Q. Will you state the name of the people who were turned out?

A. Hanratty. Q. They were ejected for two years' rent?

A. Yes. I asked what was the cause of the eviction and I was informed by a member of

the family that the first year they got a fever among them and they missed getting in

their crops that year. Q. Do you mean getting the seed in?

A. Yes, in consequence of the fever. The next year they were served with an ejectment

process and a decree obtained for the amount of the two years' rent.

Q. Did they make any effort to pay the rent?

A. They borrowed from their friends and sold everything they had on the land, such as

cattle and pigs and whatever crops they had, and some of their friends came over at

harvest to earn money and they made up altogether the two years' rent, with the

exception of the law costs.

Q. How much were they? A. I think ?5 or ?6.

Q. Did they tender the money? A. They tendered ?28.

Q. Was that the two years' rent short of the costs?

A. Yes. That was refused and they would not be admitted again unless they paid the

costs along with the rent.

Q. Were they turned out on the high road?

A. They were turned out on the day to which I allude, while I was passing by. Having made the enquiries I have now stated, I saw them when they were put out going on

their knees and in a most awful manner crying for vengeance, swearing they would be

revenged on the persons who turned them out and praying maledictions upon them.

Q. To whom were the costs due?

A. They were payable to the agent. The agent would not receive the rent unless he got the law costs along with it . . .

Q. Who was the agent? A. The agent to the property was Mr. Bateson . . .

Q. Is it within your knowledge that great and persevering efforts are made and that

privations are often suffered by the people in order to raise the last shilling of rent

which is due, to prevent their being dispossessed of the land?

A. I have known them to sell everything they had in the way of provisions, and

everything else they could dispose of, in order to pay their rent . . .

Q. Observing the occasional distress and the occasional dissatisfaction of people

amongst whom you live, has it ever struck you whether a remedy could be found for

that state of things and, if any, what remedy? A. The remedy which would occur first to me, and which has occurred to me, is simply

this, that a reduction of the rent is absolutely necessary . . . Supposing the rent was

equitable 20 years ago, the circumstances of the country, the price of agricultural

produce, free trade and everything affecting the produce of land is so altered that

what was equitable then would not now be equitable . . .

Q. Are you well acquainted with the land and house and circumstances of the three

families you have spoken of?

A. I know the house and I have often been in the house. I attended the persons who had

the fever while they were ill, as clergyman . . .

Q. Were they persons of fair character?

A. I never knew anything bad of them. They were hard-working poor creatures.




Q. Had they been long on that farm?

A. I should think for generations. Their predecessors were on it.

Q. Can you describe to the Committee what sort of a house it was?

A. It was an oblong house, no loft, a thatched cabin. One family lived in one end of the

house and another family in the upper end and the single brother in a room by himself. It was a poor house, badly thatched, very little glass in the windows . . .

Q. Do you know whether the Hanrattys who were driven out of their farm have since

returned to it?

A. No. They are dispersed through the country and the farm has been lying idle these

two years . . .

Q. You have spoken about a fund which had been raised to defend the prisoners who

murdered Mr. Bateson. Do you know at all by whom the fund was set on foot ? was

it set on foot by the friends of the prisoners? A. Yes, by the friends of the prisoners

. . .

Q. Do you think the subscription was confined to the Roman Catholic population? A. I do not think it was.

Q. Are you able to say distinctly that you believe or know that some Protestants

subscribed to that fund?

A. I believe they did . . .

Q. Do you think . . . that such a murder as that of Mr. Bateson was a thing isolated . . .

and that it does not indicate anything like a conspiracy in the neighbourhood? A. That is my belief. My belief with regard to the murder of Mr. Bateson is simply this,

that it arose from the wickedness and vengeance of those who were turned out of the

land and was perhaps co-operated in by those over whom ejectments were pending. I

am sure there were 50 or 60 ejectments and there are at the present time ejectments

pending over persons who expect every moment to be turned out and they, as far as I

know, have had no connection with Ribbonism . . .

Q. Looking at the past condition and the present condition of your parish ... do you see

many signs of improvement in social condition ... ?

A. I think it has deteriorated very much within the last 10 or 15 years. A great many of

the houses are down. Many of the people are gone away. Some portions of the land

are still unoccupied. Some of the houses are not let. The people are not so well clad or as comfortable as they were . . .

Q. Have you ever heard of Lord Templeton assisting people to emigrate? A. I heard it with regard to some persons whom he turned out at Corratanty farm, when

he was going to make a model farm of it. He paid their passage over or gave them some means of going over, but I also heard that they gave a very bad account of the

treatment they got on board . . .

Q. Did you ever speak to Mr. Bateson?

A. Frequently . . .

Q. Describe what sort of person he was.

A. My impression as to Mr. Bateson was that he exacted high rents very harshly. Q. Was he a harsh man in his manner?

A. He was rather so . . .

Q. Did he speak unkindly to the people? A. I heard them say so very often.

Q. In your conversation with him what was his manner?

A. I had very little conversation with him, except as a member of the relief committee at

the time of the famine, admitting people on the relief list and putting others off. I

thought he was rather inclined to put too many off and I was opposed to him in that

respect. Q. Upon the whole, do you think he was a harsh man?

A. I thought so . . .

Q. ... The people . . . looked on the death of Mr. Bateson as a release . . .?

A. Yes.




Appendix 4

A Famous Ribbonman ? Neil Quin of Crossmaglen

An article entitled 'A Famous Ribbonman ? Neil Quin of

Crossmaglen' was written by 'Sigma' in the Northern Whig, in 1885. It is

aniong a collection of newspaper-cuttings in Ms. 2203 (1) in the National

Library of Ireland. Not all the information contained in the article is accurate.

. . . On the extreme southern verge of the County Armagh, almost on the borders of

Louth, there is a district of country, stretching on the one side from the famous

Crossmaglen to the picturesque village of Forkhill on the other, which had a terrible

reputation for agrarian crime during several generations. The lofty range of Slieve Gullion

dominates the landscape for twenty miles in every direction. The country is generally diversified by swelling hills, which here and there have an almost conical sharpness. The land is mostly poor and stony, much of it boggy, and cultivation, except in a few quite exceptional cases, follows the most primitive methods. The population is mainly Catholic.

A hundred and fifty year ago a Presbyterian colony from Rathfriland was projected into

the district, when it was but thinly inhabited, and still exists quite separate and distinct from the surrounding population, though on terms of quite amicable relationship. The

district has always had a wild name. The district of Cashel, which lies between

Crossmaglen and Newry, was the haunt, as it had once been the property, of Redmond O

Hanlon, the highwayman. Seventy years ago, the Carders redressed all peasant grievances in this district with a bold hand. There is a man still living who remembers the execution of 'Jack the Carder' in a field opposite the Fews Barracks, ten miles west of Newry, for the

crime of robbing a miller of firearms on the very night of the Wild Goose lodge tragedy. The miller became henceforth obnoxious to the peasantry and his landlord, Squire Dawson, of Dublin, saved his life by granting his tenants leases, and making him the 'life'

of every lease. The miller died quietly in his bed only a few years ago at a great age, but

carried pistols to the day of his death.

In this district, within about two miles of Crossmaglen, there lived till thirty years ago a

very remarkable young man, named Neil Quin, in a comfortable farmhouse, which looked down upon some twenty or thirty acres of good land. The townland is called Annamar.

The father of Quin was a bailiff on the property of Squire Ball, a quiet but fearless man, who knew the risks of his position, but managed to get through life with as little friction as

possible. He received his farm from the landlord at the time of his marriage some seventy years ago. His position was lucrative. He farmed well and he saved money. He cherished the ambition of making his only child a priest and, accordingly, sent him to a classical

master who kept school at Cullyhanna, a little village about two miles from Annamar. The

boy put up his pony every day at the house of a Protestant farmer, who has often told me

of Neil's activity, smartness, and pleasantness, as he grew up from boyhood into early manhood. Neil learned Latin and Greek as well as the ordinary branches of an English education, but a sad check was given to his father's ambition by an intimation from the

parish priest that Neil would not be allowed to go forward to the priesthood. Popular tradition says no blame attached to the boy as the cause of this bitter disappointment.

In due time, the bailiff died and the widow had to manage the farm with the help of her

only son. The early scholastic pursuits of Neil, however, seem to have unfitted him for the

steady drudgery of farming. He preferred to spend much of his time in riding about the

country. He attended fairs and markets. He was a frequenter of dances and sports of all sorts and, as he was well educated, he was looked up to with great respect by the

uneducated peasantry around him. The pinch of hard times had always been much felt in

this district. It was hard work to make up the rent from year to year, and the agent was

often obliged to use the law to enforce the landlord's rights. Thus, it came to pass that a

Ribbon Lodge was established in the district. I have often seen the house where its




meetings were held by night. Though Neil was the son of a bailiff, his sympathies were

now thoroughly enlisted on the side of the tenants on the Ball property, and he became a

member of the Ribbon Society at a very early age. This was the starting point of a career

which was cut short so ignominiously thirty years ago by the hand of the public executioner

in the front of Monaghan Gaol. He maintained a fair character before the world for a

while. He was appointed by the Board of Guardians of the Castleblayney district as

warden for his district, empowered to issue medical relief tickets for the dispensary, and

his relations with his Protestant neighbours were always of the most cordial description. But he began by and by to avenge agrarian wrongs with his own hand. He was a young man of a powerful build and a passionate temper. As a cousin of his own once said to me,

'Neil had a terrible eye in his head', and he seemed to be almost ubiquitous in his raids

round the country to punish transgressors against the unwritten code of Ribbonism.

His first disagreeable contact with the law occurred in 1840, when he was charged with

the murder of a bailiff named Edward McCreish. The evidence was not sufficient to

convict him, and he escaped. During the next ten years he became the terror of the

country within a radius of five miles from his house. Four times he was a prisoner in

Armagh Gaol and charged with murder or savage assault. Twice was he convicted of

assault and sentenced to short terms of imprisonment. The grand jury once ignored a bill

for murder in the case of a bailiff. The belief of the country always was that Neil had a

hand in the murder of both bailiffs. As he was leaving Armagh Gaol, after one of these

imprisonments, he remarked to a warder: 'Don't let any dirty fellow into that cell until I

come back again'. The reply of the warder was very significant: The next time, Neil, you come here you will be leaving the gaol by a door higher up', meaning the scaffold door.

There is a gentleman still living in the district who ventured to take two acres of land

from a neighbouring farmer who was obliged to emigrate, but not without paying him for

his tenant-right. Neil resolved, notwithstanding, to punish this gentleman for taking the

land. He watched him for months so closely that the gentleman rarely ventured to fair or

market, and never left his house at all after night. Once, however, it was necessary for him

to visit Dundalk on business, and Neil somehow got on his track as he was returning home

in the shades of a November evening. They both rode good horses. Half-an-hour's pursuit made it probable that my friend would be overtaken. Mr. M ? knew that his life

depended upon his reaching a by-road leading into a bog which he could traverse without

difficulty, but which would be quite inaccessible to Neil Quin, on account of its many deep holes. This was in reality the mode of his escape. His pursuer feared to leave the county road, and was obliged to drop the chase. Mr. M ? has often since said that, after the

experience of that night, he never had a moment's peace or ease of mind till he heard that

Quin was hanged at Monaghan. The time was come at last when Neil was to commit the great crime that cost him his life.

It was the period after the famine of thirty-five years ago, when Ribbon violence was rife

at the same time in many different parts of Ireland. Lord Templeton was the owner of a

considerable property in the neighbourhood of Castleblayney, and his agent, Mr. Thomas D. Bateson, had a particular desire to establish a model-farm upon it, with the view of

improving the methods of agriculture in the country. It was necessary to displace a few

tenants in order to get the necessary land. This was accordingly done, and Corrintanty was

soon turned into a model-farm, under the watchful eye of the agent. But the Ribbon

Society was roused by the displacement of the tenants. There was a little man named Pat

Coomey, who held a farm of twenty acres under Lord Templeton, at Killycracken, two

miles from Castleblayney, and in the immediate vicinity of Corrintanty. He was generally known as 'the mealman', for he sold meal on market days in the street of Castleblayney, and had the repute of having saved a little money. He had a wife and a large family of

children. The plot to kill Bateson originated in his brain. A year before the murder ? that

is, in the early winter of 1850 ? the Ribbonmen had a meeting, at which money was

subscribed to procure assassins for this purpose. But for a whole year the project hung fire.

At last arrangements were made to 'remove' the agent on 4th December, 1851. As usual, on occasions of this sort, the assassins were brought from a distance. Neil Quin lived

nearly six miles from Castleblayney. About a quarter of a mile from his house lived at the

same time a farmer named Bryan Grant, who had twenty acres of land, and another




farmer or labourer named Pat Nocher, who had only half an acre, and was even in debt for

this small patch of ground. Overtures were made to these three neighbours to kill Bateson. As none of them had ever seen the agent, Grant was taken into the Courthouse of

Castleblayney a week before the murder that he might have Mr. Bateson pointed out to

him on the bench. This was done at the instance of Coomey.

Accordingly, on a dark afternoon of Thursday, the 4th December, 1851, as Mr.

Bateson, who resided in the town, was going out alone to visit the model farm, he was

watched by the three assassins, who were lying hid in a young plantation that skirted the

road about half a mile out on the way to Keady. The wonder was that he was alone. He

had received due warning from the Ribbonmen of his impending fate. Some days before, in passing a poor cabin, he was astonished to see an old woman issuing out upon the road

with a lighted turf in her hand and, getting down upon her knees, she began to curse him for his conduct as an agent, ending her maledictions by blowing the sparks of the turf after him. This incident, however, did not disturb him any more than the warnings received from the Ribbonmen for, though an elderly, grey-headed man, he was perfectly fearless, as well as active upon his feet. About half past three o'clock, as he was passing along the

Keady road, his pistol in his pocket, Grant came up to him and, touching his hat

respectfully, began to enter into conversation with him. They walked side by side for

nearly fifty yards, when Quin, approaching stealthily from behind, fired a pistol into the

agent's neck. The bullet passed through his throat, but he was strong enough to make a

powerful resistance. It was all in vain, however, for Grant and Quin battered him to the

ground with some sharp instruments, leaving him half dead and completely unconscious. He lived for a day and died at his lodgings without being able to utter a word. The assassins were observed, three in number, though Nocher was a mere looker-on, to escape from the scene of the murder by several persons who were working in an adjoining field.

They made straight for home. I have often seen the road they took along the river bank, for they did not consider it safe to keep to the highway.

The police were immediately on the alert, but all trace of the assassins was lost. Two

brothers named Kelly were afterwards arrested in mistake and tried twice for the murder but the juries disagreed. The police were on the wrong scent. It seemed as if justice were

baffled. Neil Quin and his companions lived quietly at their homes for a year and more,

imagining, we may suppose, that all danger was past. Suspicion, however, began to attach to Coomey, but after he had made a declaration before a magistrate, which inculpated

nobody, he thought it wise to betake himself to Liverpool, where for a year he made his

living by selling ropes along the quays. At last the Government got upon the right scent

and arrested Quin, Grant, Nocher and Coomey. They were tried twice but the juries disagreed. At last Nocher, after a year's imprisonment, and in terror of his own life, resolved to give Queen's evidence. He believed he had been badly treated in getting very little money for his share in the murder. Quin got above ?6 for his share. As soon as Quin

heard of Nocher 's betrayal, he said with a cry of anguish: 'Oh, I'll never see Annamar

again'. He was right. The trial came off at the Spring Assizes of 1854, more than two years after the murder,

in the Courthouse of Monaghan, before the late Baron Greene. The present keeper of the Irish Records, Sir Samuel Ferguson, and the late Mr. Ross More were the counsel for the

prisoners. The reporters noticed the fine intellectual appearance of Quin in the dock, as he

stood by the side of his more rustic confederates, Grant and Coomey. The trial lasted several days. The prisoners were convicted and sentenced to be hanged on the 11th April.

None of them then, nor at any subsequent time, professed their innocence of the crime for

which they were doomed to suffer.

The execution took place on a Monday, which was market day in the town of

Monaghan. The circumstances created a great sensation at the time. All the three convicts had parting interviews with their wives on the previous week. Quin's wife parted from him

without any display of emotion on either side. He had often beaten her for he had a savage

temper. This parting took place on Sunday evening. Coomey was the most depressed of

the three and was allowed the luxury of his pipe. Just as they were about to be locked up for the night, he asked Mr. Temple, the Governor: 'When will that come off tomorrow?'

The answer was, 'Twelve o'clock'. Neil asked the Governor at the same time, 'Will we all




go down together'? 'No, the scaffold accommodates only two'. 'Then', said Neil, 'Bryan and I will go together'. And this matter was arranged according to his wish. On the

following morning Neil surprised everybody by skipping about in his shroud ? as if in a

state of hysterical exultation, saying he would not accept a pardon if it were offered to

him, and that-it was the happiest day of his life. Grant was fearfully depressed. When the two white figures appeared on the scaffold, there was a cry from the crowd which thronged the space before the gaol that will never be forgotten by those who heard it. The hangman 'worked them off in due course and Grant died instantly, but Neil struggled terribly for

fourteen minutes. The priests in attendance left the scaffold and sought out the hangman in his room to see if he could not shorten the agonies of the dying man, but they only received the gruff reply: 'Every man does not die alike'. Strange to say, Neil had expressed a hope that he would suffer long as an atonement for his sins. Coomey was hanged afterwards.

About the very time of the execution, the wretched mother of Neil was pacing up and

down the square of Crossmaglen, wringing her hands and tearing her hair in the anguish of

her grief.76 This was the end of the terrible tragedy. But there are two or three facts to be

gathered up at the close. The hangman who officiated on this occasion was a red-haired,

red-eyed Limerick man, with a large bony frame. I have seen him and I have heard him

speak. He was far too nervous for his business. The only remark I remember from him was: 'In troth, it is pure murdher to hang Pat Coomey'. Baron Greene held a very different opinion, for he said that the murder-plot originated with Coomey, though he had

nothing to do with the actual murder. Lord Templeton swept all the Coomeys off his

property, so that his seven children were thrown upon the world. A daughter became servant in the house of a friend of the writer. But Neil Quin was soon forgotten by his wife.

She married a respectable farmer shortly afterwards and lives still within three miles of her

old home at Annamar. The execution of her first husband does not seem to have struck

her as entailing any discredit upon his connections. One Sunday about ten years after Neil

had closed his stirring career, she was on her way to chapel at Cullyhanna, when a woman

of the Presbyterian faith accosted her as a stranger: 'Are you for meeting today'? 'No', said Mrs. Quin, striking an attitude on the road. 'God forbid. Nothing so bad as that could ever be laid to any of my connection'.

It is curious to think how differently the career of Neil has been regarded by his friends

and his enemies. Landlords and agents and bailiffs breathed more freely after the scene in

the front of Monaghan Gaol. But some twenty years ago I was talking to a cousin of Neil, a

poor farmer named Quin, who was digging potatoes in a bog on a cold winter day, and his

remark to me was: 'Well, sir, before Neil was put down, we could not get living in the

country, but now we are not troubled by either landlords or agents. A poor man has a

chance now of getting a living'. It is quite true that Neil, whether living or dead, did lay a

restraint upon the ejecting power of the landlords in that district, and that the tenants were

but little interfered with for many years after the execution. Yet the wild spirit of the

76 Written in pencil in the margin of the article: 'Blame the Parish Priest who wouldn't

let him go on for priesthood', an apparent reference to the tradition that Neal Quinn had, at one time, expressed a wish to become a priest but had been rejected by Fr Michael

Lennon, P.P., Upper Creggan. In a chapter entitled 'The Conspiracy' in Realities of Irish Life sometimes called

Unrealities of Irish Life! ? William Steuart Trench wrote: '. . . The young man thus

addressed was a pale delicate-looking youth, possessing a form and features which one

could hardly expect to find amongst his companions. In early life he had been intended for

the priesthood, but feeling a repugnance to that profession ?

being fond, as he said, of

poetry, and still fonder of girls ? he commenced reading for the situation of a national

schoolmaster. Whether the girls were unkind to him, or whether he liked the excitement of a wild idle life ?

plotting and conspiring, and telling tales to the unlettered peasantry of

the tyranny and oppression under which his native land groaned at the hand of the relentless Saxon ? I know not, but at that time he had joined the Ribbonmen and was a

favourite at their meetings from his minstrel tendencies and capability of finishing the

evening with a song . . .'




Crossmaglen neighbourhood was not exorcised by the extreme severity of the law, for it is

still, as we know in another generation, prepared for fresh outbreaks, either in the form of

St. Patrick's Brotherhood or in the familiar shapes of old Ribbon comspiracies. But a

whole generation had to die out before the lesson was forgotten . . .

Appendix 5

Heading of Contemporary Street Ballad. Original with Con Short, Contemporary Street Ballad (Original .- Con Short, Rassan)

Come all you tender hearted Christians I hope you will draw near, A doleful lamentation I mean to let you hear, In silent grief now join with me while I here take my pen,

Lamenting Patrick Coomey, Bryan Grant, and Neal Quinn.

Upon the tenth of April we long shall mind the date, Those three men in youth and bloom alas has met their fate, It was little their fond parents thought when in their infancy,

They'd end their days in Monaghan, upon a gallows tree.

Being on the 3rd day of last March All in this present year,

They were arraigned before the bar their awful doom to hear,

They were tried and found guilty most dismal was their fate, But their sentence then was deferred until the twenty eight.

The day of these men's trial, the truth to you I'll tell, Their prosecutors, they did swore they were the only men.

That done this wicked awful deed, for which they had to die, All on the front of Monaghan gaol upon the labbeard high.




The day of their execution, it was a dismal sight, To see those trembling victims and their clergy dressed in white,

Standing on that awful trap, praying to the Lord most high, For to have mercy on their souls as they were going to die.

To see their wives and families it would grieve your heart full sore,

Crying farewell dear husbands as we'll never see you more, Then if you would see that sight it would grieve you to the heart, To see their wives and children as they did from them depart.

Saying the Lord may be a father for you both night and day, And may he protect our wives and orphants when we are in the clay.

Farewell to Castleblayney where we spent some happy days,

Amongst our loving neighbours whom we never did displase. We forgive our prosecutors, wherever that they be,

In hope the Lord of Heaven will have mercy upon us three.

So all our loving Country men, those words to you we say, In hopes that you'll take warning when we are in the clay,

All for to shun deception and God will be your guide, Be advised by your clergy and keep peace all your side.

Round Carrick and Castleblayney, and on by Crossmaglen,

They're lamenting late and early Brant Grant and Neal Quinn, Their loving friends and neighbours in sorrow does deplore, Likewise their aged parents they'll never see them more.

Now to conclude and make an end I have no more to say,

May the Lord have mercy on their souls all on the judgement day, As the Lord conveyed the Israelites across the raging sea,

May the king of right I pray on sight receive their souls this day.

Appendix 6

Whose are the Graves at the Hospital?

Extract from Dundalk Democrat, 31.12.1932:?

"You voted for the erection of a hospital on the foundations of an old jail, where our

ancestors were buried in years gone by. There are three graves there, of the last three that

were hung. Were they not executed there, and many a one forby them, in years gone by? You will be digging up human bones at it. Shame on you! Shame on you!"

These words of Mr. Patrick Conlon during the debate at Monaghan Board of Health on

the Co. Hospital question, probably caused more interest than anything else which has

been said about the hospital controversy. Curiosity was immediately aroused as to the

identity of those whose remains lay in the graves, which are said to be behind the porter's

lodge, and outside the ground to be covered by the new buildings.




The buildings until now used as the Co. Hospital were, as most people know, once the

County Jail, standing on the hill overlooking the town. As a jail it had been used for a

considerable time, and before that, it is said to have been a barracks, and hundreds of

years ago, a fort is believed to have stood on the site. During the time of the building's occupancy as a jail, several executions were carried out, and it is believed that the graves alluded to are those of the last men executed at the jail for the murder of a land agent in

the last days of 1851. The story of this murder and the trial of those suspected of complicity in it, is an engrossing one.77

77 There follows a long account of the murder and trial.

Bateson memorial, St Columbas Cathedral\ Deny

French Revolution

ON FRIDAY Morning next, the 13th Inst. will be ready for delivery (Price only 6Vi? each) elegant

Breast Ribbons

especially struck for this Year's Celebration of the FRENCH REVOLUTION, done in Silver upon National Ribbon ?

They will be sold at the Warehouse of Mr Samuel Neilson, Warren Street;

? at Mr James M'Clean's Parade;

? by all the Booksellers and principal

Haberdashers; and by John Tisdall, Printer, opposite the Exchange. Those who, wish to engage quantities, are requested to give their Orders immediately to John Tisdall.

Belfast, July 7, 1792. The Northern Star, 7 July 1792



agrarian disturbances around crossmaglen, 1835-1855: part vii

Documents