The McLoughlins & the Burns

The McLoughlins

Susan was the daughter of John McLaughlin a coal miner. Perhaps Elswick Colliery was the work place of both John McLaughlin, and John Henry’s younger brother William. She was born at Durham city according to the 1901 census, so I assume she was the daughter of John McLaughlin and Hannah née Howe, born 18 July 1875 at Ludworth Colliery in the Durham registration district.

Hannah Howe married John McLaughlin at the parish church (C of E) at Easington on 30 November 1861. John was a coal miner ‘of full age’ this meant he was 21 or over, John was the son of a coal miner, John McLaughlan. Hannah was an 18 year old spinster, the daughter of John Howe, a coal miner, like her husband she was resident at Shotton Colliery and could not sign her name, but made her mark.

On 7 April, at the time of the 1861 census neither bride nor groom seems to have been living in Shotton. The witnesses to the wedding were Aaron Lawson and Edwin Morhouse. There is no Edwin Morhouse in the 1851, 61 or 71 census; however Edwin Moorhouse, a school master in Leadgate appears on the 1871 census, he was born in Lancashire, but had a child born at South Hetton, Durham in 1865, also Edwin Morhouse was the only party to the marriage who was able to sign his name. The 1861 census, just over six months before the wedding found Aaron, a 17 year old coalminer, at Brancepath Colliery. The mobility evident in these census returns show how much movement there was in the Durham coalfield. I have been unable to find the Howe family on the 1861 census, but there may be a record of the family on the 1851 census at Great Lumley, and also in Great Lumley in 1841, once it becomes clearer whether of not these were our Howes, I will record their details.

 

In February 1889 Mary Ann McLoughlin married Bartholomew Saunders (or Saunders), both of Wickham, at the Gateshead register office. Mary Ann was the daughter of John McLoughlin, a deceased coal miner. It would later become clear that Susan and Mary Ann were sisters. It seems that Bartholomew was illegitimate, as the section for details of his father on the marriage certificate is left blank. In fact Bartholomew appears on the 1881 census aged 14, (coalminer) living at Medomsley Edge with Edward (72) and Jane Saunders, his grandparents. Bartholomew and Mary Ann appear at Ryton, Durham on the 1891 census with their one year old son John, who was born in Close House near Shildon in South Durham. Whenever Mary Ann appears on a census, a different birthplace is recorded! On this occasion she was said to have been born at Sutton in Co Durham. By 1901 Bart and Mary Anne, now with two children, were at Pontop Rows, Kyo, Annfield Plain, where they were soon to be joined by John Burns. On this occasion Mary Anne’s birthplace was given as Byers Green near Willington in South Durham.

John Henry was registered as a voter at 533 Scotswood Rd on the 1899- 1900, & 1901-2 registers. John Burns, my granda, was born at 533 Scotswood Rd on 21 Jan 1898; his father John Henry was still at the Elswick works, where it seems he spent his working life. Three years later, at the 1901 census, the family John Henry, Susan and John (2), were still at 533 Scotswood Rd. 533 must have been quite a large house: the Stewart family had 2 rooms, the Burns 2 rooms, John William Dodds (42) and his wife Jane Ann, had 1 room, and the final group in the house had 4 rooms. It was at this address, a year later (23 March 1902) that Susan Burns died. She had been suffering from bronchopneumonia for 4 days, and had given birth to a premature baby, (which must have died – no birth was registered- the previous day). An obituary appeared in the Evening Chronicle of 27 March 1902.

‘533 Scotswood Road on the 23^rd inst. Aged 23 Susan beloved wife of John Henry Burns, interred this Friday 28^th inst, lift at 2-30 pm. Friends, please accept this invitation.’

 

Shortly after his mother’s death John was sent to live at Kyo near Annfield Plain, a mining village in Co Durham, with Mary Ann and Bartholomew Saunders. I remember my granddad telling me about a greyhound which would let anyone in, but no one out of the house, this may have been in Annfield Plain, or perhaps at Newcastle. As discussed earlier, Mary Ann’s maiden name was McLocklin, the daughter of John McLocklin (deceased) a coal miner and I assume, the sister of Susan Burns (McLocklin), and so Bart and Mary Ann were John Burns’ uncle and aunt. There were already two children in the family at the time of the 1901 census, and Isabella D Saunders was born in September 1901 at 53 Pontop Row Kyo. In 1911 the Saunders were at 9 Mary Street Annfield Plain, the census return for Mary Anne McGloughklin confirmed Mary Anne’s birth in Shotton.

I remember visiting Bella and her husband Bob Reay, a miner, with my grandfather in Annfield Plain, when I was a child. Interestingly Bob’s mother was born in Broomside, and her first child at Shadforth, placing them in the same area as the McLoughlins in the 1870’s. 1967 electoral role gives their names as Robert W Reay & Isabella Reay.

An early photo of life in Annfield Plain.

The first sighting of an aeroplane over Annfield Plain was recorded both by Mr. Fred Wade and in the local history journal of Mr WA Jennnings.  One afternoon in 1913 the plane was sighted travelling south - then reported to have made a forced landing in a hill­top field some six miles distant near the village of Cornsay Colliery. Fred Wade records his cycle ride to the locality where he found hundreds of people already at the scene. This picture is taken on that occasion. The pilot was Captain Cody, a noted pioneer airman who had been competing in the King's Cup air race to the north of England and back to the south.  Granda Burns told me how he saw the plane come low over the village, and how he followed it to the site where it landed.

John Henry Burns continued to live at 533 Scotswood Rd, remaining on the municipal register for 1902-3, compiled in the third quarter of 1902 # successive electoral roles need to be checked.

 

 

 

 

(Eliz, wife of Andrew Dodds? look for A Dodds on 1901)

The 1901 census also revealed that Martin Judge had married sometime after 1881, his wife Mary was 10 years his junior at 47, and came from South Shields. This is the entry which states that Martin (and presumably, the rest of the Judges) came from Mayo.

 

John Henry Burns’ brothers and sister.

 

The census of 1901 shows a Charles Burns (31), the eldest of the siblings, an iron works labourer, lodging at 11 Alexander St Elswick with the Fleming family Charles Burns of Elswick appears on the electoral role in Elswick throughout the 1920’s & into the 1930’s.

 

The only William Burns matching the details of John Henry’s younger brother was at 44 Back Frederick St Throston, Holy Trinity Parish Hartlepool. William was a labourer in a forge.

A steam hammer in operation at a forge.

William was married to Jane Elizabeth Calvert, the Darlington born daughter of a forge man, they had two sons Thomas (1 year) and Walker (1 month). A visitor in the household was James Burns, a factory labourer. Both William and James were born in Newcastle, but had aged only 8 years in the last decade!

William’s marriage certificate shows his father as William Burns, deceased, a Cooper. The 1881 census index shows no William Burns, cooper with a son William born in Newcastle, I think the Hartlepool William, and his visitor James were my gt gt uncles and that William had boosted the occupation of his father posthumously from labourer to tradesman (his grandfather James Garvey was a cooper). The resemblance between the signatures of the two William’s (father & son) is striking.

 

Lizzie Burns is described as a newsgirl/hawker on the census of 1891 and clearly had a shrewd business brain. Winnie Shippen (my aunty) tells of aunty Lizzie keeping a shop in Noble St in Newcastle in the 1930’s with a flourishing sideline in moneylending. My granda told me about a large greyhound, she kept, who would let anyone into the house, but wouldn’t let anyone out!  Recently Ryan Tully, my 3rd cousin, found that Elizabeth Burns was the sponsor (godmother) of Thomas Tate Burns, the son of William and Jane Calvert.  Thomas was baptised at St Joseph’s (Catholic) Church in Hartlepool on 12 April 1899.  So it seems Lizzie was not married by that stage.  So far Lizzie has not been found on the 1901 or 1911 census.

The Newcastle electoral role of 1922 shows John Henry Burns elector at 29 Noble St, along with Henry &Ellen Hartness, and Alf &s. Poulton.

 

The 1925 role has John Henry Burns as an elector at 29 Noble St. and Charles Burns at no 35 Noble St.

 

1928-9 Charles Burns at no 35.Noble St

 

1933 Charles Burns at 33 back Noble St

1938-39 Charles Burns at 33 back Noble St

 

 

1907 Sept 7th at 22 Canada St Shieldfield Newcastle, death of Bridget Manning, (61) widow of Bartholomew Manning. Bridget died after a fall in her room, an inquest was held on 9 Sept.

1908 191&193 Scotswood Rd a William Burns on the voters list (Q-H) possibly brother of JHB. 1914 191 Scotswood Rd a W Burns Beer Retailer ,Wards Directory of Newcastle reprinted on reprint of 1913 Map of Elswick Check on 1901 census to eliminate

 

1911 January 18 RVI Newcastle, death of William James Burns (39) a Railway Joiner, possibly brother of John Henry Burns. Check on 1901 to eliminate

 

1911 Census showed John Henry Burns (36) shipyard riveter, and John Burns (12) at school living in 1 room at 31 Noble St , Elswick.

1913 January copy of JB’s birth cert. obtained to allow him to begin work at the age of 13. The certificate suggests he was living at 33 Noble St, with his father John Henry. Granda told me that as a boy he worked in a glass blowers shop.

 

 

14 Dec 1914 beginning of the five years of John Burn’s apprenticeship as an electrician with Armstrong Whitworth.

 

1914 Parliamentary Register, at 31 Noble St. Neil and Charles Burns, and Alexander Ross.

 

1914 Parliamentary Register 191&193 Scotswood Rd William Burns.

 

18 May 1916 signing of John Burn’s indenture as an electrician with Armstrong Whitworth.

 

1920 January12 Apprenticeship completed at the Armstrong Naval Yard, Higher Walker, “conduct very satisfactory”.

 

1924 John Burns started work for Consett Iron Company. (25 year service watch)The Higher Walker Naval Yard (founded in 1912) was short of work, and closed in 1928, while the owners of Consett Iron Company had decided, despite the depression, to totally modernise the works, this work started in 1923.

 

26 March 1926 Death of John Henry Burns at 29 Noble St at the age of 54 from cancer of the oesophagus. Described as being a boilermaker, certificate for provision to Boilermaker’s society. Death reported by John Burns of 33 Noble St (Death Cert.) Why was John Henry at 29 Noble St at the time of his death, was this the house of a relative?

 

1926 March 29 Burial of John Henry at St John’s Westgate and Elswick cemetery. (reg. no 63055 grave no 219 section S unconsecrated ) JH described as being aged 51 on receipt from City cemetery. Fee paid by Mr J Mc Loughlin - undertaker.

 

1926 April 5 St Michael’s Church Westmoreland Rd Newcastle, wedding of John Burns of 5 Court St Blackhill and Mary Ellen Glacken of 114 Sycamore St Newcastle witnesses John Glacken, Isabella Saunders and Ellen Dingwall. Steven Shippen senior, says that John had moved to Consett due to the depressed state of the Tyne Shipyards . At this time Consett Iron Company had just embarked on a major modernisation programme. John Burns was in lodgings at Cort St, and soon afterwards obtained rooms for his wife and himself with Billy Eccles at St Mary’s Cres. Blackhill.

 

1926 29 Noble St Autumn Register of electors William and Eliz. Brown, Andrew and Eliz Dodds. Aunty Lizzie?

 

1926 35 Noble St on Autumn Register of electors a Charles Burns.

 

1926 Dec 19 ETU statement of account, paid 42 weeks contributions, excused 10 weeks.

General strike?

 

1927 Jan 15 Birth of Winifred Burns in Newcastle.

1927 Dec 24 ETU accounts 52 weeks paid

 

1930 January 17 birth of John Burns Junior who was baptised at St Joseph’s Church Benwell Newcastle.

 

1931 ETU accounts 45 weeks contributions paid, excused 7 weeks because of unemployment.

 

1933 Envelope postmarked envelope addressed to J Burns at 8 Valley Gardens. Throughout the 30’s grandma and Grandpa Glacken would go on holiday with the Burns family to Whitley Bay.

 

1936 Nov 5 at 6 Bertram Place Newcastle, death of Winefred Glacken, née Manning (aged 72) informant John Glacken of 6 Bertram Place.

St Michael’s Elswick was the church the Glackens attended.

1938 August 28 at 6 Bertram Place, death of Thomas Glacken (73), retired shipyard driller, informant John Glacken of the same address.

 

 

 

The Garveys and the Burns

The Garveys

 

One of the few Irish in Derwentside on the 1841 census was James Garvey, 20, an agricultural labourer living at Baxton Burn Cottages, Benfieldside West. Another of the Irish people in Derwentside in 1841 was a Mr Smith also an agricultural labourer in Benfieldside West; but there is no evidence to connect these people to our Garvey and Smith ancestors.

According to McLysaght, Garvey (meaning rough) is a name from Kerry, Donegal, Armagh, Down, or Mayo. Smith; whilst occurring throughout Ireland is the most common name in Armagh. I hope at some stage to check the Armagh records to see if the family can be found.

The Garveys first appear in England in Newcastle. The first record of the Garveys was the birth of their son Henry in Newcastle on 20 March 1843; they were living at Park Place, just north of the original Eldon Sq. James was a labourer, Elizabeth registered the birth: she could not sign her name, so made her mark.

St Andrew’s Church Newcastle.

At Henry’s baptism, by Father James Riddell at St Andrew’s Worswick St, the sponsors were Thomas Kennedy and Isabella McLoughlin. We know from a later census that Mary Smith was born about 1821 in Ireland and her husband James, also in Ireland about 1808. There is no record of James Garvey and Elizabeth Smith’s marriage in England, so I assume they were married in Ireland; however the following report appeared in the Newcastle Courant of January 10 1840.

 

On 11 June 1848 an Owen Garvey of Blackhill, Consett Co Durham married Rose Cunningham. The 1861 census reveals that Rose was from Louth, and Owen from Down. They appear on the 1881 census at Darlington; this couple were married at Brooms 11/6/1848. Later at the baptism of John Henry Burns, my gt grandfather at St Mary’s Cathedral on 18 December 1870 Newcastle the sponsors were Peter Coyle and Mary C… Peter Coyle appears on the 1881 census in a household made up of Coyles, Cunninghams, and Carrolls, including a Patrick Carroll, born in Consett, and a Catherine Cunningham, born in Newcastle. Both Owen Garvey and our ancestor James Garvey had sons named Henry. All these names appear in the TAB in Newtown Hamilton Armagh.  Was there a link between the Newcastle and Blackhill Garveys?

In 1852 a Mary Garvey (there were two in Newcastle at the time of the 1851 census) and John Mackel were sponsors at a baptism. A later census saw grandchildren, whose name appears to be Garvey, as lodgers with the Mackel family in Pudding Chare, Newcastle, and a subsequent census revealed that the Mackels came from Co Tyrone.

Mary Garvey was born on New Year’s Day 1846, but surprisingly in those days of high infant mortality, was not baptised until 25 Jan, at St Andrew’s almost a month later, when her sponsors were John and Mary Conway, and the priest Fr L Cullen. The civil registration of Mary Garvey’s birth has not yet been found#.

 

 

A view of Grey St in the city centre from an advertisement (N.C. 13 Feb. 1846)

 

The 1851 census found the Garvey family in Pipewellgate, a very poor area of Gateshead on the banks of the Tyne, and the centre of Gateshead’s Irish community. In 1843 there were just 3 privies (ash closets) for the 2,000 inhabitants. The street which gave its name to the area was 330 yards long and only 8 feet wide.

The superintendant of the Gateshead Police reported in 1850 that he had seen filthy rooms, but no more so, than the 20 square feet occupied by 15 to 20 people in a Pipewellgate lodging house*. The Garveys were lodging with Mary Thompson (born Newcastle) and family. James Garvey (37) was a Cooper, born in Ireland; Elizabeth (36) born Ireland Henry (7) born Newcastle, Mary (5) born Newcastle, and John (2) born Newcastle, the record of John’s birth has not yet been found.

 *Northumberland and Durham, the Sinister Side Steve Jones.

Pipewellgate was originally a separate township to Gateshead. It was called after the ‘pipe well’ from which wooden pipes carried Gateshead’s water supply. An account for 1631 states ‘paid ye mason for hewing and laying stones at the pipewell’. - The suffix gate is used in the sense of street or lane. The street was of medieval origin although it was largely rebuilt in the 18^th century. Pipewellgate ran parallel to the river and consisted of small factories, workshops and tenemented houses. It was generally regarded as one of the worst residential areas in Gateshead. Reports of local doctors and inspectors frequently condemned the area. In 1850 Inspector R. Rawlinson wrote of Pipewellgate, 'Neither plan nor written description can adequately convey … the true state and condition of the room-tenements and of the inhabitants occupying them. The subsoil on the sloping side of the hill is damp and most foul, the brickwork of the buildings is ruinous, the timber rotten; and an appearance of general decay pervades the whole district … Single rooms are let off as tenements which are crowded with men, women and children; the walls are discoloured with age, damp and rot; the windows are broken, old rags, straw and boards occupying the place of glass, so that means of light and ventilation alike are absent'. (Manders, 1973 quoted on http://isee.gateshead.gov.uk/detail.)

 

On 21 August 1853, a James Garvey died of an aneurysm of the aorta at St John’s Infirmary, Newcastle. This man was a catholic, as his name appears in the record of requiem masses said at St Mary’s Cathedral Newcastle, he was buried at the Ballast Hills Cemetery on 23 August, described as a labourer whose abode was Byker Bar he was very likely James, the husband of Mary, who was widowed by 1871.

I have been unable to find Elizabeth Garvey or any of her family on the 1861 census of Gateshead, or Newcastle.

 

The electoral role for 1868-9 shows Henry Garvey as an elector at 26 Byron St Westgate. As12 months residence was a requirement it seems that Henry, and I assume, the Burns family, moved from Gateshead to Byron St immediately after his sister Elizabeth married William Burns in December 1867.

 

The Burns in Newcastle.

William and Elizabeth’s first child Charles was born on 27 Dec 1868 at 26 Byron Crescent (right on the edge of the river Tyne) Elswick Newcastle, the first Burns to be born in England.

Two years later, my great granda John Henry Burns was born (3 Dec 1870) at 3 Milton St Westgate, he was baptised on 18 December at St Mary’s, sponsors Peter Coyle and Maria Carroll. *Carroll Coyle Cunningham?1881?

The Burns were still at Milton St 4 months later on 2 April 1871 when the census took place. The family’s name was recorded as Barnes, due no doubt, to William’s Scots accent. William (23) was described as an iron founder (the Morning Chronicle article on the South Wales iron Industry reveals that founder was the term for a worker at the bottom of a blast furnace) Mary was (24), Charles (2) and John Henry (4 months) Also in the household were Mary’s mother Elizabeth Garvey (50) and Mary’s brother Henry Garvey (25) also an Iron Founder. I wonder if John Henry was named Henry after his uncle who would have been 10 when his father died and who likely played a major role in keeping the Garvey family together, or whether he and his uncle were named after an earlier ancestor.

William Burns (junior) was born at 492 Scotswood Rd on 6 April 1873, and his sister Elizabeth Aunty Lizzie to my dad and aunty Winnie) at the same address on 3 March 1875. By the time James Burns was born on 16 May 1878 at 40 Noble St, a street which was home to the Burns family at various stages after 1878.

 

The census of 1881 found the Burns family at 281 and 283 Scotswood Rd Elswick, occupation of two houses might suggest the family were more comfortable than before, but in fact there were four family groups sharing the two houses, and this was also the case with the other houses in the locality. Perhaps the landlords of the properties found it more profitable to knock two houses together before letting out rooms. Charles 12, John Henry 10, and William were at school, the two youngest children (Elizabeth and James) at home. As at the previous census their Grandmother Elizabeth Garvey (56) was included in the household.

In 1882 Grace Burns was born (9 Jan) at Bowman Terrace, between Scotswood Road and the river. Sadly, Grace died at the age of 14 weeks. An inquest was held, and found that Grace has been accidentally suffocated in bed (it was common, due to overcrowding for children to sleep in the same bed as their parents, and this may have been the cause of death in Grace’s case). The coroner was John T Hoyle, a solicitor of 4 Leazes terrace, it is no criticism of JT Hoyle to point out that in his, no doubt, spacious house, where he lived with his daughter and grandson, there were five servants.

Deaths Mar 1884   (>99%)
Burns	Grace	0	Newcastle T.	10b	7

?

Henry Garvey died at 3 Back Gun Terrace, Westgate on 24 March 1884. Henry, 36, was a foundry labourer, he died of acute bronchitis, his brother in law William Burns of 4 Bowman Terrace reported his death.

A feature of life in the years between 1883 and 1886 was that at dawn and at sunset the sky would appear red, because of the dust thrown into the atmosphere by the eruption of the volcano Krakatoa.

 

 The last of William and Mary’s children Matthew, was born at 30 Ramshaw St Elswick in 1887(21 May). William was by then working at the Elswick works, and he registered the birth.

William Burns appears on the voters list at 30 Ramshaw St on the 1886-7 and 1889 registers, but on the 1890 register a different family appears on the role, and it seems the family had moved again. At some point over the next 3 years William died, so far I have been unable to find when or where. Mary (Garvey) Burns appears as a voter on the municipal voters’ role for 1891-2, from Edgeware Rd, the first of our female ancestors to have the vote (in local elections). This means the family were at this address from 15 July 1890.

 In 1891 the census recorded Mary as a widow. The Burns were now at 13 Edgeware Rd Elswick; Charles (21) was a general labourer, John Henry (19) was an apprentice riveter – boiler (a boiler maker), William jnr (17) was a putter (a coal tub pusher) in a coal mine. Elizabeth (15) was a news girl-hawker, and Matthew was four. This census asked how many rooms were at the family’s disposal (if less than 5); the Burns family had 2 rooms.

For 1893-4 Mary Burns’ qualification was for ‘successive properties, 13 Edgeware Rd and 10 Rendel St’. This means that Mary Burns moved from the first address to the second, and qualified for the vote as a result of the aggregate time (minimum 12 months) she had held tenancies at first at Edgeware Rd, then at Rendel St.

Elizabeth Garvey did not appear with the Burns family on the census returns for 1891 and so far has not been found elsewhere on the census but she was still alive. She died (of pulmonary congestion and senile exhaustion, - meaning old age) in the Newcastle workhouse on 10 July 1893. Mary Burns her daughter was in attendance. Mary’s address was 10 Rendel St Elswick.

The death of Matthew Burns aged 8, in 1896, of ‘inflammation of the lungs and bowel, and exhaustion’ must have been a terrible blow to Mary. By then the family were living at 51 Alexander St. Elswick. Four years later, on 4 March 1897, Mary Burns (43) died of cirrhosis of the liver and kidneys. Rosannah Nugent of 40 Noble St reported Mary’s death.

 

John Henry Burns a boilersmith of 16 Noble St. married Susan McLaughlin (23) of the same address, at St Michael’s Church Clumber St Elswick, on 18 June 1898. Patrick Duffy, a neighbour of John Henry from Noble St was the best man. The Duffys were an Irish family from Co Down who, like the Burns, came to Newcastle after some time in Scotland.

 

*The Parliamentary Franchise in the United Kingdom 1885-1918

The inhabitant occupier as owner or tenant for 12 months preceding the 15th July in any year of any dwelling-house within the county.

The infirmary at Forth Banks, between the site of what is now the Central Station and the river.

Landlordism in Ulster [Kildress]

LANDLORDISM IN ULSTER.

(The Freeman's Journal on Thursday 9 June 1881 carried the following letter, written by Charles Quin, a priest who had grown up in the parish, but was then parish priest of the South Armagh parish of Killeavy.  The letter gives details of the way rents were raised on any land that the farmers worked to improve.  It mentions the hardships of the mountain farmers at the end of the 1870s, hardships which, locally, Quin says were worse than those of 1847.  John J Monaghan, in his letter of 2 March 1880, writes of the danger of starvation in Kildress if funds were not forthcoming from charitable donations on a monthly basis [see elsewhere on this blog].  Fr Quin's letter give much interesting information on the Loughrans of Evishbrack - [written Evishbrook - a typesetting error], the Monaghans of Dunnamore and the Quins [of Dunnamore?].  Several of the familes referred to in the letter wrote letters to John Loughran in the USA, or are mentioned in the letters, see the blog, Lettters from kKildress.  This period Ireland  was known as, 'An Gorta Beag' - The Little Famine, many histories suggest this was confined to Connaght; this letter, and the letters from Kildress, make clear the Little Famine had a major effect on the upland farmers of Kildress ) 

TO THE EDITOR OF THE FREEMAN.

Sir – Facts are very stubborn things in their own way and it is a fact that the years 1878, ’79 and ’80 were very trying on the tenants in the mountain land, and Kildress being in the main a very mountainous parish, suffered much.  I know of no other parish in Ulster that was so literally ruined by the continuous rains, the variations in the price of stock and produce, the total failure of the potato crop, and the partial loss of hay and oats that were not secured till Christmas day during those memorable years.  I remember well ’47 and ’48 and I assert without fear of contradiction that the tenants in Kildress suffered more acutely in the years 1879 and ’80 than they did in 1847 and ’48.  Now, what would the world say at the conduct of landlords, whether lords or earls, who would extract increased rentals in 1847 when Ireland was like a huge sepulchre, strewn over with the unburied corpses which lay with starvation’s gaze in the fever sheds or on the roadsides and byways where there could be seen, if history tells us right, mothers with their infant children clasped in cold embrace, while the little ones were struggling against the mother’s fate by trying to extract their natural aliment from sources now by death dried up!  The conduct of such a lord would be declared a legal and proprietary right, whilst the historian would describe it differently – as that of a tyrant, of an oppressor, and, I might add, of a monster.  History tells us of many dark deeds in this our island of sorrow, but, thank God, our history’s page of ’47 contains no such case of landlordism.  The history of landlordism in Ulster in 1879 and 1880 will yet be written, and I will leave to the writer of those pages to describe the conduct of the earl and his agents who extracted from their faithful tenants an increased rental in years of dire distress.  In rare combination we find the charitable and humane, who, like good Christians in these years of dire distress, seemed to forget their social, political and religious differences and joined hands in the noble work of feeding the poor, clothing the naked, and comforting the poor tenants in the mountains of Kildress.  In the pages of the ‘Freeman’ appear the names of our beloved Primate and the good Duchess of Marlborough, of our patriots Parnell and Dillon, of our doctors and priests, all of whom in their own way were trying to assuage the sufferings of an impoverished tenantry in the mountains.

But the names of the noble earl and his two agents (Tanner and Burly Stuart) appear in the records of the county court over 80, as I am informed, ejectment processes that were carried into effect in order to frighten the tenants and coerce them into the payment of the increased rents in these years of awful distress.  If not 80 ejectments then I ask the noble earl and his two agents this simple question – how many?  In my evidence at the sitting of the Bessborough Commission in Belfast I put the number at 86, but I am informed since that this number is under the mark.  In my examination before the commissioners I treated the two estates as one and as such I treat them now, as they belong to one noble earl.  But say they be allowed 20 per cent of abatement for the last two years, and hence, our tenants have no right to complain.  They would have no right to complain, nor would they complain I am sure, had the earl and his agents paid the valuers Wilson and O’Neill to remain at home until the Land Bill would pass and the famine pass away, but as the earth and its fulness by divine right created for earls, their agents, their pleasures and sports, it would be wicked, in their view of things, to allow the serfs and the slaves of Kildress 20 per cent, on the rents of 1878.  I presume the earl and his agents reasoned thus – The times are very hard now, and the landlords must do something in some way.  Now let us put our heads together and see can we devise some scheme whereby we may hoodwink the public by appearing to be generous to our tenants, while at the same time we add 30 per cent to the current rental.  This reasoning became too intricate for the mental capacity of the noble earl but not so for this worthy agents.  We will increase the rent 30 per cent, thus.  We will reduce the rents of a few – say that of the parish priest and a few others.   We will make no changes in a few other cases, then we will begin by increasing some 5 per cent, some 10 percent, some 20 per cent, some 40 per cent, some 80 per cent, some 100 per cent, some 500 per cent and the reclaimed land as a general rule 1,000 per cent.  We will add this increment to the old rent and embody it in the receipt of 1879.  We will then offer 20 per cent abatement to some and “the increases in rent under the new valuation we will show as abatement to others for this year”.  In the year 1880 we will extract the increased rent and should the times continue bad we could allow 20 per cent for that year on the increased rent, but without any loss to ourselves, and then for the future a pure gain of 30 per cent on our large rental without expending one sixpence towards its realisation.  The effects of this reasoning are clearly perceptible from the receipt of Burly Stuart quoted in my last letter.  Michael Quin’s rent in 1878, £2 11s 8d, in 1879 increased to £6 13s 5d which was embodied in the receipt but £4 2s 9d was refunded to him, being the increase in the rent under the new valuation.  In 1880 Michael Quin paid the increased rent £6 13s 5d, receiving an abatement of £1 12s 6d for the year, when deducted from £6 13s 5d leaves £5 0s 11d, which is an increase on his original rent of £2 9s 3d.

What was Quin’s abatement during these two years of dire distress?  Look at the figures which I have given, and you will at once detect the principle on which the noble earl and his worthy agents acted towards these reclaimers of mountain land in years of famine.  The public may ask why did the tenants not resist such a claim at such a time and under such circumstances?  The answer is plain.  The few who received the small reduction under the valuation paid.  The few others whose rent was not increased were glad to pay.  Others, again, whose rents have increased five per cent deemed it the most prudent course to submit, and many followed the example of the few, under the threat of ejectments, law expenses, the roadside, buckshot and British bayonets.  These are stern and stubborn facts which cannot be gainsaid.  We now come to the two brothers of Michael Quinn, Peter and Patrick.  Peter reclaimed about three acres of his portion consisting of 27 acres at £2 11s 8d.  He told me in the presence of Mr Michael Quinn, Cookstown, that he broke his heart reclaiming one acre.  His rent was increased, with broken heart and all, to £3 11s 10d.  He refused to pay the increased rent for the very good reason that he could not pay the original rent.  I saw his farm, and the reclaimed land would not set at 6s an acre in any part of England or Scotland, yet £30 an acre never reclaimed(?) . . .(unreadable).  The third brother sold his portion to a man named Keenan(?), who reclaimed a few acres and was raised from £2 11s 8d to £4 16s 10d besides bog rent 15s, and the bog on their own farms.  The original rent of the farm before sub-division £1 15(?)s raised to £7 15s about 40 years ago and now again raised to £17 6s 1d, including bog rent, which is an additional rent on the farm.  The increase of £15 16s 1d on this farm of old Michael Quin utterly beggars and ruins his children who spend their young days trying to reclaim the unreclaimable.  At 3 per cent it is interest for £500 and how the earl and his agents transfer forever this large sum from the pockets of these poor men who earned it by hard work and at the expense of much capital into their own pockets, who never expended one drop of sweat or one penny towards its realisation.

The next townland on the earl’s estate is Evishbrook, and the first man I met on entering it gave me the following facts and figures:- My name is James Loughran.  My father occupied a farm containing 106 acres, at the yearly rent of £4 10s.  He divided the farm between his three sons, John, Arthur and myself.  The mountain part was about 6 pence an acre, and the few acres reclaimed by my father was raised to 1s per acre at the time of the straight marches.  My brother John reclaimed 12 acres and he is raised to £4.  Arthur sold his portion of the farm to Patrick Loughran, who reclaimed a few acres and was raised to £6 10s; but he could not pay the rent and was evicted last year by Burly Stuart.  I reclaimed 6 acres and was raised then to £3 10s.  I took out then a lease of lives, and while the Prince of Wales and his brother live, I cannot be raised.  But if they die, I would be a ruined man, like the Monaghans, whom you know well.  All the capital that I could realise by farming and other ways and the labour of my life are invested in that farm which you now see; and had Wilson, the earl, and Burly Stuart got at me now I would be robbed of all and beggared into the bargain.  I said to this poor child of toil, “Take courage, poor man, there are better times before us, for the days of the confiscators of your capital and labour are numbered.”  The poor man raised his eyes to the heavens and said in humble prayer, “Thank God for it;” but he added, “it is too late, as the tenants here are already ruined by the last valuation.”  The reclaimed land has raised from about 6d an acre to10s per acre, that is near 2,000 per cent, and this rise in these wilds ruins the tenant.  “So the general rule and general principle followed on this estate comes to this”, said I, “that the earl and his agents expend not a farthing on the reclamation of these wilds, wastes and stoney tracts which I now see, but when you expend from £30 to £40 per acre on their reclamation the earl and his agent raises the rent 2,000 per cent, thereby confiscating all your capital and labour and breaking your hearts and hopes into the bargain.  Is that so?”  “It is as true as you said it, and as true as the sun gets up this morning.”  I shook hands with this child of toil and then offered up a prayer to the great Creator to infuse into the hearts of our legislators the spirit of justice to the poor serfs and slaves of these mountain regions.  This poor man seemed to think that the end of his lease would bring an end to his happiness on this earth.  Valuations, confiscations and poverty with their train of evil would be the only reward of his youth and prime spent in creating, not comforts for himself in his old age, but in creating wealth for the lord of the castle; for his sports, for his pleasures, for his wines.  As proof that his visions were not phantoms, but dread realities in the near future, he directed my attention to the fate of the Monaghans after the expiration of their lease.  I drove over to see the Monaghans who lived in the adjoining townland.  I knew them all.  The child who is carried to school on the shoulders of his schoolmates can never forget that little attention, and when I stood by the side of Edward Monaghan – those happy, happy days of my youth, and the kindness of his two brothers John and Peter – came rushing to my imagination, creating therein bright visions of the past that will never return. 

The history of the Monaghans should be well studied.  The late Terence Monaghan came into possession of a farm containing 217 acres, at the yearly rent of £3 8s, under very peculiar circumstances.  Sixteen families occupied this farm in quick succession and all left it “broken”, in the very words of Edward Monaghan.  Terence occupied a farm in Dunnamore, on the earl’s estate, containing six acres of reclaimed land.  He swapped, as they say, this farm for the larger farm of 217 acres.  He took Hugh Quin’s farm, and Hugh Quin took his.  He got a lease for Rector Stuart’s life.  He reclaimed, he paid his rent, he reared and educated his family, and lived happy and content.  He divided his farm among his four sons, Edward, John, Peter and Patrick, thus – To Edward, 52a 3r; to John, 63a; to Peter,  53a 2r; and to Patrick, 48a, at the yearly rent of £2 2s each.  These four young men got married, built houses and reclaimed rocky and mountainy land, which seemed to me to be beyond the powers of man to bring into the state of cultivation.  Being strong, young and of giant strength, they rolled those huge boulders from their fastnesses for ages and into the fences and into pits dug into the earth, but at a great loss.  Three sons of Edward Monaghan broke their hearts rolling these stones and died.  The term of this lease expired in 1870.  The late Mr Little, who was then agent, sent the valuer and raised the rent to the following figures:- Edward was raised from £2 2s to £10 8s plus 10s bog rent; John from £2 2s to £9 10s, plus 10s bog rent; Peter from £2 2s to £10 8s plus 10s bog rent, Patrick from £2 2s to £9 plus 10s bog rent, thus increasing the rent on this farm from £8 8s to £41 6s without ever expending one farthing.  Now for the effects of this increase on the capital and labour of these poor men.  Before this increase these families could pay their way, and though not very rich were respectable, happy and content.  But since the time of the increase all is changed.  They lost confidence, hope and independence, and as a consequence they became poor, wretched and miserable, so poor that Peter was obliged in his old age to leave wife and family and go to America.  Their rents are increased £33 by the late earl and Mr Little.  Now £33 per annum is good interest for £1,000 on land property.  This being so the earl transfers £1,000 which in right and justice belonged to the Monaghans and was created by the capital and labour of those serfs and slaves.  These poor families are now poor and wretched but the earls wallow in their lordly castles at the expense of the reclaimer, who cannot at present command a bag of Indian meal.  But this earl says the parish priest is the best landlord in his parish.  Well, when he is the best what must the worst be?

CHARLES QUIN, PP

 

The following reply from, P M'Namee, the parish priest of Kildress, was published in  " The Freeman's Journal of Tuesday 28 June 1881

LANDLORDISM IN ULSTER
TO THE EDITOR OF THE FREEMAN
Kildress, June 23^rd

Sir-as the name of the parish priest of Kildress has been unnecessarily been imported into the controversy at present going on between Rev. C Quin P.P. Kilevy, and Earl Castlestewart’s two agents, I think it well to make a few brief remarks to set myself right with my parishioners and the public.  I don’t suppose I would have taken any notice of the references made to me, but would have passed over in silence, were it not that one of my parishioners observed the insinuations made against me and urged upon me the necessity of a reply.  First reference to me; Rev C Quin represents the two worthy agents, “Tanner and Burleigh Stuart,” as he terms then, but I shall call them Mt Tener and Major Stuart, as plotting and planning to get   an increase of 30% added to the rental and then they should say to each other “Let us lower the parish priest and a few others for appearance sake and to hoodwink the rest, and then go on increasing the rent 10, 20, 30, 40, 100 on the remainder making a net gain of 30 per cent on the entire rental.”  The manifest insinuation here is that the parish priest is lowered for the purpose of closing his mouth, and in order that the agents might  [illegible] his flock as they pleased, or in other words that the parish priest would sacrifice the interests of his flock to his own private gain.  And, as a result of the reduction of his rent, the parish priest saying a little further on to Father Quin that the Earl is the best landlord in the parish, although painted by Fr Quin in rather dark colours.  Now I meet those two references to my name in this way.  In the first place my rent has not been lowered.  Whether it may be lowered or not by the late valuation is a matter of which I have no official information either from land valuers, agent or landlord.  That it should be lowered and that too considerably, is a thing which all must admit who know anything at all about the farm.  It is a matter of surprise to anyone knowing ought about the farm how such an extravagant rent was imposed upon it.  Those who know the value of land generally have about £15 per annum on it as something like a fair rent.  Others put the figure below that and still £23 per annum is the present rent.  Now I can be no means agree with Fr Quin in the plotting [illegible] for which he give the agents credit.  And should there be a plot or plan in the reduction of my rent and that of a few others (if they really have lowered them).  Fr Quin surely would not imagine that I would be a party to the plot and sacrifice the interests of my people for my own private advantage.  Still this is the natural inference drawn from his letter by those who took the trouble of reading it.  Second reference to me: I should have said, I would support, as a result of getting my rent reduced, that Earl Castlestuart was the best landlord in my parish.  I plead guilty to the charge of having said so, although I sais so in a private and friendly communication, which I( addressed to Fr Quin a short time ago.  I leave it then, to his own good taste whether or not he should have made use of that expression and parade it for his own purpose in the columns of the “Freeman”.  If Fr Quin should succeed in getting a commission appointed to look into relations existing between landlord and tenant in the parish, he might then ascertain how much I was astray.  Any parties to whom I spoke to on the subject all agree in saying that the Earl is the best landlord in the parish.  However it is not in my present purpose to act the part of apologist for the Earl in his dealings with his tenants, neither shall I enter on the subject of the arbitrary rising of rent on the tenants’ improvements by the Earl or any other landlord.  It may be that I hold as advanced views on this subject as Fr Quin or many others.  However there is one thing I will say, and it is this: That if Fr Quin were looking for cases of rack-renting, he might have commenced nearer home and on properties with which h should be more conversant, but perhaps relations near and dear still living on these properties prevented the exposure.  He could /should [?] have commenced on properties where there have been as many as three revaluations within the memory of living men and where the tenants are in such a state of poverty as that many of them do not have a four footed animal about their houses.  Or he should have commenced on properties where the ejectment processes have been falling like snowflakes during the last six months.  Should he pass these by in silence, some will not be slow in attributing motives for such conduct, and let him take care if the motives are mot already spoken of.  In conclusion I shall say that I think I have the welfare of my people very much in heart and I should gladly do all in my power to improve their condition.  No doubt Fr Quin thinks they are sadly neglected; hence the necessity for his travelling down so far, and his warm advocacy on their behalf.  I am sure the people are ever grateful and can appreciate his services at their proper value. – I remain, Mr Editor, yours truly,

P M’Namee P.P.

P.S.-Please give this an early insertion as a matter of simple justice and fair play.  P. M’N.               

.