Clontarf Crisis

Daniel O’Connell scheduled the last of his monster meetings for one of the most historic locations in Ireland,  the battle field of Clontarf. There Brian Buru had defeated the Vikings and united Ireland. For the first time, a monster meeting would be held within easy reach of the British forces in Dublin and the ships of British fleet whose canons could spray the meeting site with deadly fire.  O’Connell seemed not to consider the British advantages of this site. Furthermore, he announced the meeting well in advance to give the British government plenty of time to make their plans and gather their forces.

By Saturday, October 7, 1843, many Irishmen from Meath, Kildare and Dublin were already marching in good military form toward Clontarf. Just before dark, a message was delivered to Daniel O’Connell and his supporters that the British government had decided to declare the meeting illegal. O’Connell immediately submitted to the proclamation of the British,  dispatched riders to inform the marchers that they were to return home. It was a great testament to the Irish people that such an about-face could be effected without any conflict. On Sunday, at the time the meeting was to take place, only British troops occupied the field, beach and sea beyond. Daniel O’Connell instead was in Dublin where he held a meeting to vote for the resolutions intended for Clontarf. The usual post-meeting banquet took place in Dublin as planned.

The actions that O’Connell took seemed like the worst of all possible solutions O’Connell’s speeches had led his supporters to expect a brave confrontation with the British government. Instead, they had gotten a meek surrender. The Young Irelander part of the Repeal Association was particularly upset. Some of them believed that the march should take place to test whether or not the British troops would fire on unarmed men. Others believed that Daniel O’Connell and his closest supporters should appear at the field to offer themselves for arrest.

John Martin’s friend from Newry, John Mitchel, had a more militant solution. O’Connell should lead the country marchers to Clontarf. However, the Dublin Repealers should be kept back in Dublin to stage an uprising, seizing the weapons at the Castle Barracks,  destroying the Canal Bridge, and barricading the streets leading to Clontarf.  Mitchel believed these acts could succeed as Dublin, for a short time would be undefended.

But, O’Connell had no wish to  take any such dramatic actions against the British no matter how greatly he excited the Irish. Despite the fact that many Young Irelanders had suspected that O’Connell was more bluff than bluster, they were still bitterly disappointed at the fallout of Clontarf. British jubilation at their great triumph over the Irish was bitter enough. But worse was the recognition that O’Connell would never achieve Irish independence. They believed that O’Connell had pursued policies that led to a choice between “hopeless resistance or abject submission.”

O’Connell went ahead as though nothing negative had occurred. For a few days, new memberships poured into the Association. One of the new members was William Smith O’Brien who had pled Ireland’s cause before Parliament in July. In the letter which accompanied his application for membership in the Repeal Association, O’Brien wrote, “Ireland, instead of taking its place as an integral part of the great empire which the valor of her sons has contributed to win, has been treated as a dependent, tributary province; and at this moment, after forty three years of nominal union, the affections of the two nations are so entirely alienated from each other, that England trusts the maintenance of their connection, not to the attachment of the Irish people, but to the bayonets that menace our bosoms and to the cannon which she has planted on all our strongholds. I should be unworthy to belong to a nation which may claim at least as a characteristic virtue that it exhibits increased fidelity in the hours of danger. If I were to delay any longer to dedicate myself to the cause of my country, slowly, reluctantly convinced that Ireland has nothing to hope from the sagacity, the justice, or the generosity of the English Parliament, my reliance shall henceforth be placed upon our own native energy and patriotism.”

Business as usual ended on October 12, when the British arrested O’Connell and 8 others, including Charles Gavan Duffy, the publisher of The Nation. 

All of the accused quickly posted bail, so they could be present on October 22nd for the opening of the headquarters of the Repeal Association. It was located on Burgh Quay next to the Corn Exchange where the Repeal Association had been meeting since its founding.  Conciliation Hall, as O’Connell named it, was an oblong building with the entrance on the shortest side facing the river Liffey. The outside was fairly simple, pilasters leading to a balustrade above. A harp and crown chiseled into the stone was the only other ornamentation. The inside was grander and arranged to ensure that O’Connell was always the center of attention.

While the finishing touches were being put on Conciliation Hall, the dispirited Young Islanders discussed what actions they could take next. They knew that O’Connell didn’t like opposition, so silence from the group was the simplest course. Still, they had contributed greatly to the powerful group the Repeal Association had become, and they believed O’Connell had wasted that power.
After much discussion, they decided that they wouldn’t oppose O’Connell’s leadership, but would make clear they  dissented from his decision to retreat at Clontarf.  They reasoned that any breach between them and O’Connell could be healed later. Since a quarter of a million men and women across Ireland read The Nation, they resolved to use the paper to make their position clear. Thomas Davis summed up the Young Irelander position, “Retreat would bring us the woes of war, without its chances or its pride.”

Unfortunately, these earnest young men could not know how deadly this split in the forces of nationalism would be in two short years.

The trial of the 9 men accused of conspiracy against England dragged on for months before a carefully selected jury that favored England. On May 30, 1844, all men were convicted and removed at once to Richmond Prison.  John Martin immediately traveled to Dublin and joined the Repeal Association. With that action, John became a political figure of importance for the rest of his life.
John Mitchel wrote to Duffy in Richmond Prison about this new member. Mitchel told Duffy that Presbyterians were beginning to join the Association in small numbers, “some from patriotic motives, and some from party ones, some from high, some from shabby ones, will join the conspiring for old Ireland. But if there be a single member of the Association that has joined it for the pure love of justice and of his native land that one is John Martin.”

The 9 Accused of Conspiracy

Sources: Last Conquest of Ireland (Perhaps) by John Mitchel; Life of John Mitchel, by William Dillon;  Young Ireland, a Fragment of Irish History, by Sir Charles Gavan Duffy.

The Case For Ireland

John Martin kept busy with his farming duties, no matter how many Monster Meetings were held in Ireland or contentious debates on Irish gun control divided the British Parliament.  By July, hay was ready for harvesting. This was a labor intensive operation, as laborers cut each field with using only a long handled scythe. Since many hands were needed, John combined his workers with those of his neighbors and Uncle Harshaw to produce crews large enough to cut the hay quickly as each field reached the best time for cutting.

Haying (US Picture)

July was also a time for preparing turf for the winter fires. This too was hard, hand work, with a man and his specially designed shovel called a slane working from sunrise to sunset cutting and stacking the turf bricks. 

No matter how busy John was, he would find time to read the Nation. So he was well aware that an Irish landlord named William Smith O’Brien was going to make a motion in Parliament for a committee to study the grievances of the Irish, the full transcript of which would be printed in the Nation. Like many Irishmen who felt keenly the wrongs British law had inflicted on Ireland, he waited anxiously for that edition of the Nation to arrive in Loughorne.

O’Brien presented the case for Ireland on July 4, 1843 before members of Parliament who were decidedly disinterested in being called to account for their failures in Ireland. To Irish members and those who read the speech later, the speech justified their Monster Rally’s and general discontent, and introduced a new leader for Irish nationalists.

First O’Brien informed Parliament that the majority of the Irish people wanted to be a “happy” part of England , if only England would make the simple steps that would make this outcome possible. The Union, the basis of the current connection between the two countries, must be overturned.  The Union “could not have been accomplished without the basest corruption. . . By the united influence of corruption, fraud and force, an union was imposed upon Ireland which has never been recognized by the Irish people as a national compact. Its terms were unjust and offensive, and accordingly, they have produced in the continued discontent of the Irish nation, that retribution which always follows injustice.”

The first grievance on O’Brien’s list was financial.  The Union had brought increased taxes on many items important to the Irish such as tea. This money went to England. Many landlords who had lived in Ireland went to England after the Union, so the rent money paid in Ireland went to England for its benefit. O’Brien suggested that these absent landlords should pay a special tax which should be spent in Ireland to help mitigate the loss.

Religion was another major cause of dissension in Ireland.  Catholics and Presbyterians were still required to support the Established Church at the expense of their own churches. Except under the leadership of Whig Lord Lieutenant Normanby, Catholics held no positions of leadership. The current administration was unwilling to appoint its enemies to office, enemies they created with anti-Catholic policies.

The great Reform Act of 1832 didn’t help Ireland much either.  It increased the number of representatives Ireland and Scotland sent to Parliament. By population, Ireland should have had 200 members of Parliament, not the 100 they were allotted under the Union. Reform gave them 5 new members while much smaller Scotland got 8.  Ireland could not be allowed to influence Parliamentary legislation fairly.

The next major reform Great Britain produced was the Corporation Law which allowed for increased local control.  Reform in Ireland took an extra two years to implement because the Irish were “aliens in blood, in language, and in religion.”

The Poor Law placed a special burden on Irish land holders like John. It was administered by English imports most of whom knew little of Ireland and its needs.  This was true of most high offices in Ireland,  Irish high judges, for example, were mainly English, so the Irish doubted the quality of justice in Ireland.  On the other hand, few Irish held any positions of importance in England though they were members of the same country under the Union.

Access to land was a matter of life and death in Ireland. All Irish farmers must be protected by the rights of the Ulster Custom which allowed John and his neighbors the right to keep possession of the land they leased as long as they paid their rent, that rents would be fair, and that they would be compensated for the improvements they made to the property when they left. Farmers in most of Ireland had no such protection and were frequently ejected from their land without cause or compensation for their improvements to the landlord’s land.  This inequality had been much discussed in Parliament, but attempted solutions seemed designed to make the situation worse.

O’Brien concluded with an impassioned plea to start to redress Irish wrongs by creating a study commission. “Give us, by your decision tonight, something we may present to our fellow countrymen as a pledge of your disposition to repair the many wrongs which have been inflicted upon Ireland – give us arguments which we may address to them when they tell us of the many instances which prove that Ireland has lost much and gained little by the Union. . I invite you to pursue, in resorting to measures which shall soothe animosities, obliterate distinctions founded upon differences of race and religion, and consolidate the Union of the two kingdoms by the bonds of equal laws, common rights and of international justice.”

O’Brien’s request failed, but his exposition of Irish wrongs strengthened the determination of the Irish at home. They remembered one special line from the speech. “So long, however, as they [the Irish people] acquiesce without complaint in their degradation, the Parliament of Great Britain can scarcely be blamed for allowing it to be perpetuated.”

This speech moved John a step closer to joining the cause of Irish independence. He needed only one more push, a push that lay just a few months in the future.

Sources: Diary of James Harshaw, vol. 1; Hansard Parliamentary Debate July 4, 1843
 

Monster Meetings and Guns

Daniel O’Connell, the great Catholic leader of Ireland, announced in 1840 that he was going to put all his future efforts behind an drive to free Ireland from English control. He was quickly successful in putting together a powerful organization that drew support from the Catholic Church which traditionally had no great interest in the Irish independence. By 1843, the organization was constructing an impressive building on the banks of the Liffey in Dublin in which to hold their weekly meetings. O'Connell named this spacious and elegantly simple building Conciliation Hall.

John Martin followed the accounts of the Repeal Association in the Nation Newspaper. While he strongly agreed that Ireland had suffered greatly from British domination, he made no effort to join the organization himself. His focus remained on his responsibilities to the farmers who leased his land, and his work as a Poor Law Guardian for the Newry Work House.

Early in 1843, Daniel O’Connell announced that he would hold a series of “monster meetings” across Ireland to demonstrate to the British government that the Irish people wanted to be free. He dreamed that such large demonstrations of Irish opinion would convince England to grant independence. But he felt that the more likely beneficial result would be action by the British Parliament to pass laws that would make life in Ireland better for the poor people of the country.

O’Connell believed that his monster meetings would achieve his goals only if they were totally peaceful gatherings. He made his plans very public so that British would be aware of them. “I am a disciple of that sect of politicians who believe that the greatest of all ... blessings is too dearly purchased at the expense of a single drop of human blood.”

Groups gathering for his meetings would be accompanied by the Temperance Bands which had grown across Island in response to Rev. Matthew’s efforts to reduce excessive drinking throughout the country. In addition, Repeal monitors, carrying brightly painted long wands would act as a police force to ensure proper conduct both going to the meetings and returning home. Daniel's directive would be carefully followed.

The Young Ireland faction of the Association pushed for additional elements that made the Repealers appear more like an Irish army. They suggested and led an effort to encourage participants to march in good military order, and to create and carry banners decorated with nationalist themes.  The Monster Meetings turned out to be very impressive events indeed.

The British Parliament was certainly paying attention to this new threat.  The Lord Lieutenant in Ireland, Sir Edward Eliot, 3rd Earl of St. Germans (image here), was responsible for the administration of Ireland. He sent spies to each of the meetings to report on the smallest detail. He asked for and quickly received thousands of additional troops for areas he thought might become dangerous. And in late April, Parliament itself took the first steps to pass a new Coercion law for Ireland. They had no intention of allowing the Repeal marchers to become an army. Guns must be removed from dangerous hands.

This kind of legislation was always difficult to write, since under the English Constitution, each English citizen had the right to own and carry guns.  And they did want the Protestant Irish to be well armed. So the bills must be crafted to appear to protect the rights of all Irish to have guns, but at the same time to ensure that in practice, the Catholic population would be prevented from owning any guns at all.

When discussion of the new law began, members immediately pointed out that gun ownership was a Constitutional right. One of these members was Joseph Hume, a member from Scotland. He had a special interest in Ireland, however, as he had succeeded Daniel O'Connell as a member for Kilkenny.  “It was the privilege of free men to carry arms if they pleased, and a measure to preclude the exercise of such a privilege was nothing less than a measure to degrade freemen.”

Lord Eliot replied that this new version was a simple effort to correct some problems in the existing law which was really just a continuation of similar bills that had existed in Ireland since the Union.

The new provisions would maintain the façade of the legal access to guns required by the British constitution. Anyone could own a gun who could get a signed statement of good character from anyone owning property valued at more than 20 pounds. Catholics would have a hard time getting such signatures, since most property of that value was held by Protestants. So the legislation would have the two-sided effect,  being supposedly fair, and at the same time producing the desired disarming of the Catholic population.

Another feature of the bill was the requirement that all permitted guns must be branded for identification and registered by local police. But the two most offensive provisions eased existing restrictions placed on searching Catholic cottages, and made suspected gun holders subject to arrest and detention for extended periods of time without any formal charges.

Many of the Irish MPs fought vigorously against this law. Sharman Crawford of County Down was one of them (portrait here). He claimed that they were really considering the question of “whether Ireland was to be governed by means of justice and good legislation, or whether that country was to be kept under coercion and force, and England would never be great if Ireland was enslaved.”

Mr. Crawford continued. “It was the system of oppression by Irish landlords which caused the desperation among people, to agrarian outrages. They could get no justice from the law, and they were compelled to make a law for themselves; and they said we must protect ourselves or starve.”

Irish voices against the legislation were able to draw out debate for much of the summer.  Sir Thomas Wyse, MP for Tipperary, pointed out that only the most dire situation, and terrible danger would allow Parliament to overturn the “sacred right to bear arms for self protection.” So, much debate focused on arguments over the extent of the actual danger in Ireland. 

Sir Thomas Wyse

The situation in Ulster where John Martin lived was different from the rest of Ireland.  Two speeches made this clear. Sir H. W. Barron from Waterford believed “if this bill became the law of the land, and were enforced, the result of it would be, especially in the north of Ireland, that Roman Catholics would be disarmed, and arms left exclusively in the hands of the low, violent and ill-conducted Orangemen… The Irish were a high-spirited and brave Nation which had never yet calmly submitted to be governed by force, and please God, they never would.”

Colonel Verner from County Armagh had a very different point of view but agreed on the situation in Ulster. “In the province of Ulster every member of the yeomanry corp was a member of the Orange institution and the reason was this that the only persons on whom the Government could rely there were the Orangemen and the Protestants.”

Parliament finally passed the Coercion Bill just before the session ended on August 17^th.  This was the inevitable result of all such bills, but this time opposing members were able to get their opinions and concerns heard. By final passage, monster meetings had been held in several of the most sacred locations in Ireland, all drawing huge crowds and all conducted in perfect order.  And one of the most important speeches in memory had been delivered by William Smith O’Brien, who would soon become one of John’s good friends.

John Martin registered his gun with local magistrates in keeping with the new law.

Sources:  Hansard, Parliamentary Debates, April 27, May 29, May 31, June 15, June 16, July 24, July 27, Aug. 9, Aug, 14, Aug. 17, all in 1843; Last Conquest of Ireland (Perhaps), by John Mitchel; Wikipedia entries for Hume and Eliot.

Christmas in County Down

Christmas celebrations in the 1840s were very different than they are now. For most of the poor Irish laborers, it was a day away from work. This gave them an opportunity for some time with their families. In good years, parents would provide a special treat, an orange, a bite of cheese or a hen that could be roasted over the fire. But no matter the year, this was a day without pay.

The Martin family was financially secure, so the worries of a payless day did not dampen the holiday. Often, they entertained the Harshaw family and other neighbors for a holiday breakfast. This tradition was followed in 1846 despite the famine that was engulfing Ireland at the time. After this happy gathering was ended, some participants attended a funeral for Mrs. Murdock.

Gathering together of family and friends was the single activity for most Irish families to mark the special day. There were no religious activities unless the holiday fell on  the Sabbath. In 1847, Christmas fell on Saturday. John Martin hosted the family breakfast in his home, Loughorne House that year, unaware that he would never be able to do that in Loughorne again. In the afternoon, John and his Uncle Harshaw went to their offices to pay their workers. This was a dark and deadly year for Ireland, and no one was in a position to wait for their pay.

Still, other activities took place to make the most of this day without work. Children played shinney on the lanes of Loughorne and Donaghmore. This was a game somewhat like hurling where children hit stones with curved sticks. Horse races across the fields and over the hedges occupied the horse lovers of the area. Orangemen took the opportunity to show their shooting skills in local competitions, the two events colliding in Ballyroney and resulting in the murder of Hugh McArdle in Ballyroney. (For an account of this, see post Death in Ballyroney.)

The great Irish famine raged across much of Ireland from 1845 into the 1850s. Few died in 1845, thanks to aid from the British government. But by the next year, many were already either dead or experiencing Christmas in a different land. The Martins and the Harshaws celebrated the holiday with heavy hearts ever thereafter.

Sources: Diary of James Harshaw, 1846 - 1850. Vol. One and Two.

[Updated with link]

I wish all my followers a very Merry Christmas and Happy Holiday. May you experience the joy of family gatherings that marked the day in Ireland.
Marjorie Harshaw Robie

Toward a New Nation

On April 15, 1840, the great Catholic leader in Ireland, Daniel O’Connell, announced his next political project. He would lead a great Irish movement to nullify the Act of Union of 1800 which made Ireland English. “I have the delight to feel that I shared in the struggle for the liberation of my country from the shackles of the penal enactments, but my heart never beat as warmly for Emancipation as it now does for Repeal.”

John Martin found the new  Repeal Association growing when he returned from America. Despite his strong desire for Ireland to be free and independent, John did not hurry to join the O’Connell movement. There was much work to occupy his time. He was an active and generous landlord, and a leader in his local Presbyterian Church. And he took on his first political assignment, one much closer to home.

The Poor Law which John so strongly opposed had established a new system of care for the poor peasants of Ireland. All help for the poor laborers of Ireland would be provided in prison-like Poor Houses. Funds to pay for care of each inmate were provided by a tax on the farmers of each Poor Law District. A Guardian was elected by the taxpayers to watch over the management of the Poor House and keep the taxes as low as possible. John had been elected Guardian for Ouley, the Poor Law district designated for Loughorne.

John hated everything about his job. He hated the idea of the law which placed all the cost of maintaining the poor people of Ireland on the backs of the farmers of Ireland. People with businesses and family income paid nothing.  He hated the sight of the huge Newry Poor House which hovered over Newry like a angel of death. In fact, many who entered died of rampant diseases. He hated that families were divided on entry through the tall walls that surrounded the new facility, wives from husbands, children from parents.  But most every Saturday when the Guardians met at the administrative building to conduct of the supervision of the poor, John was there.

Not long after the Newry Poor House opened in December 1841, the first link in the chain of events that led John into national political leadership took place in Dublin. One day in the summer of 1842 in Phoenix Park in Dublin, three friends, two Catholic, and one Protestant, sat in the shade of a large oak tree to discuss an idea new for Ireland. Charles Gavin Duffy, John Blake Dillon, and Thomas Osbourne Davis had met in the Repeal Association meetings.  These men were a bit younger than John and full of energy and ideas. Each of them had previous experience in the newspaper business, and saw the need for a new kind of newspaper, devoted to Irish nationality.  This paper would educate the Irish people about their heroic history and thereby promote a new pride in their country.  Before the men left the park, they had agree to try this new venture.

Charles Gavin Duffy would be the editor of this new paper, having already been the editor of a newspaper in Belfast. Thomas Davis was the visionary heart of this project. He believed that Irish, Protestants and Catholics alike, should unite for the good of their shared country, that it was a desire to be Irish that made each person Irish, not family history or time in country.

Thomas Osbourne Davis

Charles Gavin Duffy

John Blake Dillon

Newspapers were the best source of information sharing in Ireland. Each paper reached many people, as they were passed from the purchaser to many more friends and neighbors. Someone  would bring his copy to the local pub and read the papers aloud to the many laborers in the area who were illiterate.

The first edition of each new newspaper contained an early version of a mission statement. The Nation, as the editors chose to name their paper, had nationality as “their first object – a nationality which will not only raise our people from their poverty, by securing to them the blessings of a domestic legislature, but inflame them with a lofty and heroic love of country.”

Duffy, Dillon and Davis set up their new enterprise at 12 Trinity Street in the Temple Bar section of Dublin, almost within the shadow of the Castle, the seat of British power in Ireland. Daniel O'Connell liked the idea of a new weekly newspaper, as long as it was produced by some of his own young followers. In fact, John O’Connell, Daniel’s son and designated successor, was to be a contributor.

The first edition of the paper was published on Saturday, October 15, 1842. As soon as enough papers had been cranked through the large presses, stacks of them were handed over to newsboys who raced to their favorite corners to begin hawking the new paper. The Nation proved easy to sell, not a single copy being left in Dublin by noon. More papers were printed and shipped by carriage to important towns around the country.

John’s childhood friend, John Mitchel and his family were at this time living in nearby Banbridge. After some indecision about a career. Mitchel had become a lawyer. His practice took him frequently to Dublin. On some of his trips, he visited the Repeal Association meetings, and had actually become acquainted with the new editors of the new Nation.  Not surprisingly, he was most interested in reading the new paper as soon as the first copy reached Banbridge. When  he finished reading the paper, Mitchel sent it over to Loughorne, so John could read it.

When the Mitchel family, John, his wife Jennie, and children came to Loughorne to visit, the two men had much new material from The Nation to discuss. Though they were firm friends, the two men strongly disagreed about political affairs.  Mitchel was fiery and passionate, while John was much restrained and thoughtful.  Their friendship took them into strange places and down different paths. But it never faltered.

On one thing the two men agreed, the importance of The Nation. It helped propel John Martin from the quiet and peaceful country life he preferred into a life of political service his country.

Sources: Wikpedia, The Nation; The Newry Commercial Telegraph, Letter of William Harshaw, 1835, April 24, 1841; Life of John Mitchel, by William Dillon.

Bastards by Queen's Bench Decree

A great new controversy swept over Ulster in the last summer of 1841. At that time, John Martin was taking another trip, this time east to Europe. The insult to his Presbyterian religion which was causing great anger amongst his friends and neighbors was waiting when he returned. No need for him to abandon his time in Belgium, Germany, and Italy to return home.
Every August, summer court sessions, Assizes, took place across Ireland. No one foresaw the problems that would flow from a minor court case in the Armagh Assizes. A rather uncouth man named Samuel Smith was on trial for bigamy. The facts seemed straight forward. He had married Jane Gordon from Portadown in 1839. Since he had had married another woman 8 years before, the court case seemed routine. And it was except for the unique defense Smith mounted. He claimed that his first marriage was illegal as he was a member of the Church of Ireland, and any marriage with a Presbyterian, performed by a Presbyterian minister was forbidden, the exact conditions under which his first marriage had taken place.

The jury didn't accept his defense, and found him guilty. His sentence of transportation would leave 2 wives destitute. But his lawyer made a legal issue that should be heard separately. Presiding Judge Crampton ordered the issue to be heard at the Queen's Bench later in the year.

Presbyterians expected that the legal challenge would be dismissed, as such marriages had been taking place for generations. Still, John was following the subject closely. The Queen's Bench heard the case in Dublin on November 26, 1841. The arguments centered about precedents in Irish Common Law. Smith's lawyer argued that Common Law required couples to be married by someone in Holy Orders. No Presbyterian Minister held such elevated status, and therefore none had the right to perform marriages.

The Irish government assigned their leading law official to argue the case for the Crown. He argued that marriage was a civil contract under Common Law. Therefore, no minister of any kind was required. Whether or not the presiding clergyman had Holy Orders was therefore of no relevance.

The ten judges who heard the arguments took their time with the issue, so the decree wasn't issued until January 11, 1842. By a vote of 8 to 2, the judges voted that Presbyterian ministers had no right to perform a marriage where one of the participants was a member of the Church of Ireland. With that pronouncement, Smith became a free man, thousands of children born to these illegal marriages became bastards under the law. Men who believed themselves legitimately married could now abandon their wives. Settled inheritances could be claimed by others.

Presbyterians erupted in anger at this insult to their ministers who were now regarded merely as teachers, and to the insult to their religion. Meetings were immediately called at which resolutions making this fury very clear were voted and dispatched to Parliament. Uniformly, they demanded that Parliament undo the damage that had been done, and quickly too. For John, there was a personal element to the problem, as his Uncle James Harshaw had married Sarah Kidd, who was a member of the Church of Ireland. So their 10 children had become bastards too.

The new session of Parliament began on February 3rd with high Presbyterian expectations that Parliament would quickly vote to legalize the mixed marriages and validate the right of Presbyterian ministers to resume performing them. Daniel O'Connell raised the issue, pointing out all the legal problems that followed the decision.

Conservative Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel rose to speak. He assured Irish Presbyterians that he planned to introduce a bill that would remedy the problems. All existing marriages would soon be legal. However, he had yet to decide whether or not Presbyterian ministers would have their rights to marry mixed couples restored.

Local Presbyterians wanted their voices heard on this critical issue. A meeting of ministers and elders of local churches was held at the 1st Presbyterian Church in Newry to pass their own resolutions. John's uncle Harshaw was present and could provide a first hand account of what was said and done at the meeting. They demanded full marriage rights that extended into the future as well as correcting the threats to existing marriages. Rev. Mr. Weir, minister of the 1st Presbyterian Church, offered both appeal and veiled warning. "The link which the Presbyterians of Ulster formed in British connection-their well known respect for the laws, demanded and deserved this from the Government and Legislature of the Empire."

Sandys Street Presbyterian Church

Corrective legislation was introduced in Parliament ot Thursday February 24th by Lord Eliot, the current Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. He claimed that Presbyterian marriages were performed in a "very irregular manner." There was no licence, no notice, and the ceremonies were often performed by "degraded ministers." This distressing situation would end with the passage of the legislation the Conservatives had written. All previously performed marriages would be recognized, but no more would be permitted. Though the Church of Ireland opposed even this moderate proposal, it quickly passed both Commons and Lords.

Presbyterians' religion had been denounced and degraded. They had no intention of acceding meekly to such an injustice. Rev. Henry Cooke, minister of the May Street Presbyterian Church in Belfast spoke for the offended religion. How dare Parliament remove rights that ministers had held for 200 years.  How dare the Church of Ireland and its leaders in Parliament treat their ministers as mere teachers.

Rev. Cooke spoke to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Belfast to amplify his objections. "It was necessary for the friends of Presbyterian honor and rights to stiffen the sinews of war, for they were employed in carrying on a great warfare. They were fighting for their ancient 'status' and for their precious priviledges and rights, civil and religious."  These words reflected the spirit of the Ulster Presbyterians. Rev. Cooke expected that they would be sufficiently threatening to prompt Parliament to revisit the issue and undo the damage of the previous legislation.

There were other warnings as well, one from John's friend George Henderson, editor of the Newry Commercial Telegraph. "We tell them that they must promptly change their policy, else they will lose for ever the confidence of the Conservative party in this country and alienate the affections and sympathies of the best, the most orderly, the most loyal and the bravest of her Majesty's subjects-men who, should troublelous times arise, would stand side by side with England in the quarrel, and cheerfully face every danger, and peril life and limb in the maintenance of the Union."

Despite these strong words, the British government felt confident that Presbyterians would never align themselves with the Irish Catholics in opposition to Union with England. And in this supposition, they were right. No action was taken until 1844, and there was no Presbyterian revolt in Ireland. Rev. Cooke continued to talk to Prime Minister Peel, and helped work out the legislation that finally ended the dispute. Ministers would be able to perform mixed marriages but with restrictions that didn't apply to the clergy of the Church of Ireland, such as published notice of intent, and longer waiting periods. They would not be allowed to marry a Presbyterian to a Catholic. The bill passed in August 1844, but the hard feelings lasted much longer.

Robert Peel

To John, this was just another example of the kind of legislation that the English inflicted on the Irish. Before the legislation passed, John had taken a step that changed the whole course of the rest of his life.

Sources: The Newry Commercial Telegraph; Hansard Parliamentary Debate; 1844 Marriage Act and Its Consequences: Political-Relgious Agitation and Its Consequences for Ulster Genealogy, Brian T. McClintock.

Death In Ballyroney

Daniel O'Connell (Wikpedia.org)

Just as John Martin was visiting Washington DC, an  event that would change his life was taking place in Ireland. Daniel O'Connell, the Irish leader who had led the battle to end the English Penal Laws which had kept Catholics in subjugation for generations, began a new organization, the Repeal Association. The goal of this new effort was to repeal the Act of Union of 1800 which made Ireland a part of England. This was an effort that interested John, but didn't distract him from his duties as an Irish landlord, at least for a while.

On Christmas Day of 1841, an event took place a short distance each of John's home in Loughorne that would take him a step closer to a life in politics. This was one of the few days of rest for Irish farmers and they made the most of the holiday. One group of men had gathered for a horse race in the townland of Ballyroney. Not far away, a group of young Protestants had gathered together to shoot off their guns. This was an opportunity to show off their firepower to the local Catholics who were not allowed to have guns.

View Beloved Politician Map in a larger map
When these separate activities were over, each group hurried to their favorite pubs. The racing fans gathered at a pub owned by John Copes. The shooters were about a mile away at a pub owned by a man named Green. The drinkers at Copes Pub were a mix of Catholic and Protestant. And about 4 PM, as the lanterns were lit, a fight broke out between a Catholic named McKeown, and a Protestant named McRoberts. With the help of a powerful Catholic farmer, Hugh McArdle, Mr. Copes was able to stop the fight quickly and restore order. Lawrence McKeown was ejected and peace restored.

Unfortunately, Thomas Scott witnessed the start of the fight, and raced away to Green's Pub for reinforcements without witnessing the quick end to the ruckus. A few minutes later, Mr. Copes was standing at the door of his pub, when he saw the Protestant boys running in his direction. He hurried inside in an effort to bar the door, but the angry mob, led by Thomas Scott and his friends William Andrews and William Stewart were not to be deterred.

The mob battered the door open, and rushed in, demanding that McKeown be turned over to them. When Copes told them that all was well, and that McKeown had been sent home, they should have left peaceably. But instead they began fighting with everyone in the pub, and seemed to have a special interest in attacking Hugh McArdle.

Realizing what was happening, Hugh fled from the pub, and took shelter in the home of friends. There were 4 witnesses to what happened next, the owner Peter Ward, his wife and daughter, and Hugh's son Arthur. The only weapon they had to defend themselves against the armed mob who followed him there was a dung fork, known as a grape.

The terrified occupants had no time to prepare before the door burst open and the mob rushed inside. They grabbed the grape from Arthur, and used it to knock Hugh senseless. They dragged Hugh outside, and a second later, someone fired a gun.

As the sounds of the mob faded, the survivors cautiously opened the door and peered out. Hugh lay dead on the ground just outside the door. He had been shot once in the chest at such a close range that his shirt was on fire.

There was no secret as to the identity of the perpetrators. They were all local residents well known to all the witnesses. The men who had rioted at Copes Pub and then trailed and murdered Hugh were arrested and held at Downpatrick Jail for trial to be held in February 1842.

This murder brought to mind the murder of Samuel Duncan on Rathfriland Road. Then it was a Protestant  murdered by Catholics. Though identification was suspect, five Catholics were hung for the crime, and 2 more transported for life. This time, the victim was a Catholic, the murders Protestant. John Martin was far from the only neighbor who wondered whether or not with the situation  now reversed if justice would be done.

The doubt as to whether a Protestant jury would convict McArdle's killers was expressed by the editor of a Belfast newspaper, Charles Gavin Duffy, who would later become one of John's good friends. "It is a fact, which would fill Englishmen with amazement and horror, that a vast proportion of the people of Down, while they have no reason to doubt the guilt of the prisoners, for the murder of McArdle, are perfectly confident that they will escape all punishment. This belief is shared by Protestants and Catholics alike, and depends upon the assumption that an Orange Jury will acquit them, though their guilt be as  certain as a mathematical demonstration. The state of public feeling, where the people are exposed to the fury of the assassination on one side, and the perjury of the partisan Juror on the other, may be conceived."

The trial began on February 28th, with William Mathews, William Andrews, William Stewart and Thomas Scott all charged with murder. Jury selection was all important, and immediately a legal trick prevented any challenges of the jury. At the last minute, a different trial was scheduled and jury panel seated. Then the defendant was released, but the jury was carried over to the McArdle trial. As it was already empaneled, no challenges were allowed.

When the evidence had been presented, Judge Crampton recounted the testimony and the strength of it. "in my opinion I can't understand the crime as amounting to anything short of murder...If you believe the evidence for the Crown, especially that of Peter Ward, no doubt that the four, or three at least, of the prisoners are guilty of the crime laid in the indictment."

Such a strong statement from the judge brought some hope to the Catholic community that there would be justice for Hugh McArdle and for them. The jury deliberated for less than an hour and returned a verdict of "Not Guilty."

Though the verdict was expected, it was still a shock to those in the Courthouse. Judge Cramption ordered the Court to be immediately cleared. The crowd of angry Catholics and triumphant Protestants rushed outside to continue their battles on the Courthouse steps and down the hill. Sadly, Catholics learned once again that there would be no justice for them under English law. Protestants learned that they could look to English law and the English government as their protectors no matter what they chose to do.

Even members of Parliament were surprised and concerned about the issue of justice in Ireland. A major debate on the general subject of justice in Ireland. R. L. Sheil, an Irish member, stated the case. "I am well aware that English gentlemen feel some surprise at the constant complaints which are made by Roman Catholics that in the north of Ireland juries are almost exclusively composed of Protestants, and that we should attach importance to the religion of those who are to arbitrate upon our lives."

In the government response, Lord Robert Peel, who was the Conservative Prime Minister, avoided the issue of the McArdle murder, instead focusing on the fairness of the Englishmen who were in charge of Ireland and its legal system. No action was taken to make the jury system of Ireland a fair one. By the time John Martin first faced an Irish jury a few years later, nothing had been done to improve Irish juries.

Sources: The Newry Commercial Telegraph, January 1, 1842 to April 7, 1842; Debates in Parliament, Hansard, July 18, 1842.