Category Archives: Uncategorized

News – 20130801

The first in our series of articles on “The Transports of Peter Robinson” appears in the August 2013 issue of The Heritage Gazette of the Trent Valley.

This issue also includes Peter Adams’ review of “Call Back Yesterday: The Allen Family History, 1825-2013” by Rosemary McConkey and Suzanne Allen.

A Hymn Of Welcome After The Recess – Thomas Moore

“animas sapientiores fieri quiescendo”

And now-cross-buns and pancakes o’er –
Hail, Lords and Gentlemen, once more!
Thrice hail and welcome, Houses Twain!
The short eclipse of April-Day
Having (God grant it!) past away,
Collective Wisdom, shine again!

Come, Ayes and Noes, thro’ thick and thin, –
With Paddy Holmes for whipper-in, –
Whate’er the job, prepared to back it;
Come, voters of Supplies – bestowers
Of jackets upon trumpet-blowers,
At eighty mortal pounds the jacket! 1

Come – free, at length, from Joint-Stock cares –
Ye Senators of many Shares,
Whose dreams of premium knew no boundary;
So fond of aught like Company,
That you would even have taken tea
(Had you been askt) with Mr. Goundry. 2

Come, matchless country-gentlemen;
Come, wise Sir Thomas – wisest then
When creeds and corn-lords are debated;
Come, rival even the Harlot Red,
And show how wholly into bread
A ‘Squire is transubstantiated.

Come, Lauderdale, and tell the world,
That – surely as thy scratch is curled
As never scratch was curled before –
Cheap eating does more harm than good,
And working-people spoiled by food,
The less they eat, will work the more.

Come, Goulburn, with thy glib defence
(Which thou’dst have made for Peter’s Pence)
Of Church-rates, worthy of a halter;
Two pipes of port (old port, ’twas said
By honest Newport) 3 bought and paid
By Papists for the Orange Altar! 4

Come, Horton, with thy plan so merry
For peopling Canada from Kerry –
Not so much rendering Ireland quiet,
As grafting on the dull Canadians
That liveliest of earth’s contagions,
The bull-pock of Hibernian riot!

Come all, in short, ye wondrous men
Of wit and wisdom, come again;
Tho’ short your absence, all deplore it –
Oh, come and show, whate’er men say,
That you can after April-Day,
Be just as – sapient as before it.

  1.  An item of expense which Mr. Hume in vain endeavored to get rid of: – trumpeters, it appears like the men of All-Souls, must be “bene vestiti”.
  2. The gentleman, lately before the public, who kept his Joint-Stock Tea Company all to himself, singing “Te solo adoro”.
  3. Sir John Newport.
  4. This charge of two pipes of port for the sacramental wine is a precious specimen of the sort of rates levied upon their Catholic fellow-parishioners by the Irish Protestants. “The thirst that from the soul doth rise Doth ask a drink divine.”

Encumbered Estates of Ireland – Overview and Co. Cork details

http://corkgen.org/publicgenealogy/cork/potpourri/corkancestors.com/Corkencumberedestates.htm – accessed August 24, 2013.

From LDS Family History Library film number 258795, Volumes 3 & 4; film number 258796, Volumes 5 & 6; film number 258797, Volumes 7 & 8, County Cork, transcribed and in order as they appear on the microfilm.

FHL film number 258798 contains Volume 9 for County Cork, and also contains the sales of Estates from Clare, Dublin, Kerry, Kilkenny and Limerick.

FHL film number 258799 contains Volume 10 & 11, but V.11 contains only a few Cork Estates, most of this Volume concerns Estates in Sligo.

On FHL film number 258800 are Volumes 12 & 13, with the final Estate in V. 13 concerning lands in Clare and Limerick and not copied here.

Finally, FHL film number 258839 consists of Volume 64, and this Volume has only six Estates recorded. Only the Cork Estates from any of these films are contained in this transcription, in order as they appear on the film.

Surname & location spellings as per original record on film. Where illustrations and lot maps appear in the Estate sale record, this information has also been noted.

STATES ACTS – INTRODUCTION & NOTES – Anita Sheahan Coraluzzi – The Encumbered Estates Acts of 1848 and 1849 allowed for the sale of Irish estates which had been mortgaged and whose owners found themselves bankrupt. The owners could no longer meet the financial demands made by their creditors so the estates, or portions of the estates, were sold off to pay their obligations. The famine left many landlords with difficulties because so many of their tenants could not pay their rents, indeed, many lands were left barren of tenants at all by either death or emigration. With no income the landlords had little choice but to sell. However, the sale of land was inhibited by unwieldy legal procedures involving lengthy deed and title searches until the first Encumbered Estates legislation of 1848, then a more comprehensive Act being passed in 1849. These records are also known as the Landed Estates Court records, and between 1849 and 1857 this Court oversaw the sale of more than 3000 Irish estates. – The British Government hoped that “a new breed of entrepreneur would invest in and capitalize agricultural production” by facilitating the sale of these estates. And it was assumed that this “new breed” of investors would come from Britain. 1 However, during discussions of the bill in the House of Commons Sir J. Graham stated “Every encouragement ought to be given to the subdivision of land… He was most anxious to re-unite to the soil of Ireland the Roman Catholic capital of that country, which he thought would be one of the greatest securities for its tranquility. He believed that the Irish Roman Catholics through their industry, together with their long exclusion from rights as to land, had accumulated capital, and that they were not unwilling to invest it in the land. Unfortunately the large estates held by Protestants were for the most part heavily incumbered, and incumbrances prevented the nominal holders from doing their duty as landlords.” 2 Mr. S. Crawford, supporting the bill, put forward: “The cause of Ireland’s distress was want of employment and wages, which want was greatly aggravated by the embarrassed state of landlord and tenant … it was impossible to remedy the evils of charges upon land unless by improving the laws by which that land was held. He therefore hoped the House would pass this measure.” 3 But it is the opinion of Mr. Sadler during this debate that most concerns us as genealogists, as what he protested to being unacceptable are the very documents we have to look through now. He “objected to the mode prescribed for giving notice of intended sales of incumbered estates in Ireland, for they were limited to advertisements in papers and gazettes little read, or to bills put upon the doors of churches, whereas in no instance had the judges of the land ever deemed such notices valid, unless they had been served upon the parties, or other equally efficacious steps had been taken to insure a knowledge of the contemplated sale of land on the part of the person interested …” 4

The Encumbered Estates documents themselves are in the form of advertisements. Property could be sold as one lot or many lots depending on the acreage and debt of the estate. The typical first page of the advertisement of a sale is shown in the following example:

“IN THE COURT OF THE COMMISSIONERS FOR SALE OF INCUMBERED ESTATES IN IRELAND

In the Matter of the Estate of – Richard Ashe, of Ashgrove in the County of Cork, And Alicia his wife, and James Scott Molloy, Assignee of said Richard Ashe, Owners, Ex-Parte Thomas Barry and Ellen Barry, Petitioners – RENTAL Of THE LANDS OF CURRAGHUE, OTHERWISE CORRAGHEMORE, CARRIGAFOOKA WITH ITS SUBDENOMINATIONS OF EAST DROMONY, WEST DROMONY, INCHIBRICANE AND COOLDORIHY – Situate IN THE BARONIES OF FERMOY AND WEST MUSKERRY And COUNTY OF CORK – WHICH WILL BE SOLD BY AUCTION AS STATED IN THE ANNEXED RENTAL AND PARTICULARS BY THE COMMISSIONERS, AT THEIR COURT, NO. 14 HENRIETTA STREET, DUBLIN, ON TUESDAY THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 1850, AT TWELVE O’CLOCK NOON – Pursuant to and absolute Order made in the above Matter bearing date the 13th day of February 1850.”

Usually following the advertisement page is a list of the lands to be auctioned with most lists accompanied by descriptions of the property, detailed maps and conditions of sale. Often you can find an illustration of the main house on the grounds. Many of these documents then contain lists of tenants on each parcel of land and note how much land the tenant rents, the yearly rent due on that land and whether the tenant holds a lease or are tenants at will. The majority of these tenants were cottiers with no claim at all and no legal recourse to being evicted if the rent couldn’t be paid. Their leases were simply stated as “Tenant from year to year; year ending 25th March” (or whatever date the rent came due). – Occasionally there are gems to be found among these records. The following lease information is taken from the sale of the above-mentioned estate of Richard ASHE. It concerns the lands of West Dromony, being auctioned as Lot No. 4. Column headings are in brackets:

‘[No.] 1 [Denominations] West Dromony [Tenant’s Name] Timothy TWOMEY, [Quantity of Land, English Statute Measure] About 94 A 0 R 0 P [Yearly Rent] £105 2s. 0d, [Gale days] 1st May and 1st Nov., [Tenure by which Tenants hold] ‘Lease dated 14th March 1839, for the lives of Patrick TWOMEY, now aged 16 years, and Timothy TWOMEY (dead), sons of lessee, and Matthew TWOMEY eldest son of Jeremiah TWOMEY*, brother of lessee, now aged 18 years, concurrent with the term of 61 1/2 years from 1st November 1838. This lease reserves all mines, minerals and royalties…also to hunt, fowl, fish, course and sport in … this lease also contains a covenant by the tenant that he will not let, underlet or assign any part of said demised premises, and that he would lay out annually on said demised premises 100 barrels of well-burnt running kiln lime.” 5

It is acknowledged that many family genealogists will find little use for these Encumbered Estates records. Many of these recorded sales of property are so close in time to Griffith’s Valuation that they may reveal nothing more about an ancestor than what information can already be ascertained from the valuation records. However, if all other record sources have been examined for the Irish ancestor, these documents hold the possibility of at least placing the family, and possible relations, in an area one, two, three or more years after Griffith’s Valuation, along with the possibility of revealing information in some of the leases. – If the landholder that your Irish ancestor rented from has been discovered in Griffith’s Valuation records, the Encumbered Estates documents can be searched to see if the landlord sold any of his property. If so, it is another bit of information that can be added to that family’s history.

The records of the Encumbered Estates and Landed Estates Courts are available at the National Archives and National Library in Dublin. They have been microfilmed by the LDS. The Cork Encumbered Estate Court records are on LDS film numbers:

Vol. 3 & 4; film 0258795

Vol. 5 & 6; film 0258796

Vol. 7 & 8; film 0258797

Vol. 9; film 0258798 (also contains sales of estates from Clare, Dublin, Kerry, Kilkenny And Limerick)

Vol. 10 & 11; film 0258799 (Vol. 11 contains only a few Cork estates, most of the estates In this volume are from Sligo)

Vol. 12 & 13; film 0258800

Vol. 64; film 0258839 (This volume contains only six Cork estates)

Although for the most part it seems the records are bound together and microfilmed by area, there is no other apparent rhyme or reason to their order. Generally you will find North Cork estates in Volume 6, Cork City Estates in Volumes 3 & 4, etc. The following lists of Landholders whose estates were being auctioned are transcribed exactly in order as they appear on the LDS microfilms. Once the ancestors’ landholder has been determined from the Valuation records, it is that landlord you will search for in the volume indexes, leading you to the corresponding microfilmed estate records.

COUNTY CORK ENCUMBERED ESTATES – LANDLORD INDEX

SURNAME, FIRST, VOL., FHL FILM NO.

ABBOTT, Charlotte, 3, 258795
ABBOTT, John George, 3, 258795
ABBOTT, Samuel, 3, 258795
ADAMS, Hugh, 3, 258795
ADAMS, Thomas Travers, 6, 258796
AHERN, James, 3, 258795
ALCOCK, William Morris, 12, 258800
ALDWORTH, Rev. John, 6, 258796
ALDWORTH, St. Leger, 6, 258796
ALLEN, Catherine, 4, 258795
ALLEN, Eliza, 4/13, 258795/258800
ALLEN, Francis, 4, 258795
ALLEN, John, 4, 258795
ALLEN, Maria, 4, 258795
ALLEN, Thomas Henry, 8, 258797
ANDERSON, John William, 10, 258799
ANGLIN, James, 5, 258796
ASHE, Alicia, 6, 258796
ASHE, Richard, 6, 258796
ATKINS, John Robert, 8, 258797
ATKINSON, Jane, 7, 258797
AUDLEY, George Edward, Lord Baron, 13, 258800
AUSTEN, Elizabeth, 5, 258796
AUSTEN, William, 13, 258800
BAGGS, Henry, 13, 258800
BAILEY, Robert, 4, 258795
BALDWIN, Alleyn, 13, 258800
BALDWIN, Catherine Morris, 12, 258800
BALDWIN, Henry, 4, 258795
BALDWIN, Herbert, 4, 258795
BALDWIN, Herbert the Younger, 4, 258795
BALDWIN, William, 13, 258800
BANTRY, Richard, Earl of, 12, 258800
BARRY, Edmond, 6, 258796
BARRY, Edward, 5, 258796
BARRY, Eliza Milner, 10, 258799
BARRY, Ellen, 6, 258796
BARRY, Garrett Standish, 10, 258799
BARRY, James, 8, 258797
BARRY, James Milner, 10, 258799
BARRY, John, 5, 258796
BARRY, Mary Milner, 10, 258799
BARRY, Michael, 3, 258795
BARRY, Thomas, 6, 258796
BARTER, Thomas, 8, 258797
BARTOLETTO, Caroline, 10, 258799
BARTOLETTO, John, 10, 258799
BEAMISH, Adam Newman, 5, 258796
BEAMISH, John Samuel, 13, 258800
BEAMISH, Richard, 3, 258795
BEAMISH, Samuel George, 5, 258796
BEAMISH, William Henry, 5, 258796
BEARE, Richard, 3, 258795
BECHER, Alicia Gahan, 4, 258795
BECHER, Edward Baldwin, 4, 258795
BECHER, George, 4, 258795
BECHER, John Richard Hedges, 4, 258795
BELCHER, Alice, 4, 258795
BELCHER, Anna (widow), 4, 258795
BELCHER, Hester Waring, 4, 258795
BELCHER, John Tresillian, 4, 258795
BELCHER, John Waring, 4, 258795
BELCHER, William, 4, 258795
BELL, James Chapman, 3, 258795
BENNETT, John, 8, 258797
BENNETT, Joseph, 12, 258800
BERNARD, A.B., 12, 258800
BERNARD, William Banfield, 12, 258800
BICKFORD, Robert, an infant, 4, 258795
BIGGS, Henry, 5, 258796
BOURKE, Ellenor, 4, 258795
BOURKE, James, 4, 258795
BOWEN, John, 4/13, 258795/258800
BOWLES, Henry, 7/8, 258797/258797
BOWLES, Spottiswoode, 7/8, 258797/258797
BRASIER, Ellen, 6, 258796
BRIBOSIA, Francis Esq., 4, 258795
BRIBOSIA, Mary, 4, 258795
BROWNE, Peter, Rev., 4, 258795
BROWNE, Rev. John, 13, 258800
BULL, Arthur W.J., 8, 258797
BULL, Christopher A., 8, 258797
BULL, Jane W.E., 8, 258797
BULL, Joshua Frederick , 8, 258797
BULL, Marianne C., 8, 258797
BULL, Mary W., 8, 258797
BULLEN, Robert, 8, 258797
BURELL, Peter Robert, 5, 258796
BURMESTER, John William, 10, 258799
BUSTEED, Catherine, 13, 258800
BUSTEED, Richard, 13, 258800
BUTLER, James Edward, 7/8, 258797/258797
BYRNE, Edmond, 6, 258796
BYRNE, James, 6, 258796
CALLAGHAN, Frederick Marcus (p. 2 & 3), 3/6, 258795/258796
CALLAGHAN, John Edward, 3, 258795
CALLAGHAN, Louisa Margaretta, 3, 258795
CALLAGHAN, Richard, 3/6, 258795/258796
CALLAGHAN, Thaddeus, 8, 258797
CALLAGHAN, William, 8, 258797
CALLANAN, John, 13, 258800
CALLANAN, William, 5, 258796
CANNIFFE, John, 12, 258800
CAREY, Edward Keily, 10, 258799
CARMICHAEL, Andrew, 7, 258797
CARMICHAEL, James, 6, 258796
CARMICHAEL, Richard, 7, 258797
CARMICHAEL, Thomas, 6, 258796
CARNEGIE, James, 4, 258795
CARROLL, Barcroft Haughton, 3/11, 258795/258799
CARROLL, John, 3/11, 258795/258799
CARROLL, Sarah, 3/11, 258795/258799
CARROLL, William, 3/11, 258795/258799
CASHMAN, John, 5, 258796
CHARLEWOOD, John, 7, 258797
CHATTERTON, Hedges Eyre, 3, 258795
CHATTERTON, Henrietta Georgiana (p.3), 3, 258795
CLEARY, John Thos., 3, 258795
CLERY, Anne, 3, 258795
CLERY, Charles, 3, 258795
CLERY, Edward, Rev., 3, 258795
CLERY, George, 3, 258795
CLERY, George Carlton, 10, 258799
CLERY, Helena, 3, 258795
CLERY, Henry, 3, 258795
CLERY, John Thomas, 3, 258795
CLERY, Joseph Bernard, 3, 258795
CLERY, Maria, 3, 258795
CLERY, Richard, 3, 258795
CLERY, Thomas, 3, 258795
CLERY, William, 3, 258795
CLIFTON, William Appleby, 3, 258795
COGHLAN, Charles, 10, 258799
COLTHURST, John Bowen, 5, 258796
COLTHURST, John Henry, 5, 258796
CONNELL, Charles, 5, 258796
CONNELL, Christopher, 8, 258797
CONNELL, John, 8, 258797
CONNELL, John Minton, 8, 258797
CONNELL, Mary Athins, 8, 258797
CONNELL, Mary Minton, 8, 258797
CONNELL, Thomas, 7, 258797
CONNER, Daniel, 5, 258796
CONNOR, Catherine, 5, 258796
CONNOR, Denis, 5, 258796
CONNOR, Ellen, 5, 258796
CONRON, Hatton Ronanyne, 5, 258796
COPPINGER, Henry Thorne, 5, 258796
CORBAN, Laurence, 10, 258799
CORKER, Chambre, 13, 258800
CORNWALL, George, 12, 258800
CORY, William, 10, 258799
COTTER, Catherine, 6, 258796
COTTER, Sir James, 6, 258796
COTTRELL, Charles, 4, 258795
COX, Katherine Anne, 12, 258800
COX, Martha Deane, 12, 258800
COX, Sackville Hamilton, 12, 258800
CREAGH, Michael, 8, 258797
CREAGH, Philip William, 8, 258797
CREAGH, William, 8, 258797
CROFTON, Edward Lord, 7, 258797
CROFTS, Christopher, 8, 258797
CROFTS, Freeman, 8, 258797
CROFTS, George, 6, 258796
CROFTS, Rev. William, 8, 258797
CROFTS, William, 8, 258797
CROSSLEY, Elizabeth, 13, 258800
CUMMING, George Gibson, 5, 258796
CUMMINS, Arthur Bettesworth, 3, 258795
CUMMINS, Charlotte, 3, 258795
CUMMINS, Edward Richard, 3, 258795
CUMMINS, Frederick Joseph, 3, 258795
CUMMINS, James John, 3, 258795
CUMMINS, Joseph Frederick, 3, 258795
CUMMINS, Joseph King, 3, 258795
CUMMINS, Thomas Mannix, 3, 258795
CUMMINS, William Henry, 3, 258795
CURTIN, Charles Joseph, 8, 258797
CURTIN, William, 8, 258797
CURTIS, Henry, 5/13, 258796/258800
CURTIS, Mary, 5/13, 258796/258800
DALY, Charles, 4, 258795
DALY, Charles John, 8, 258797
DANCKERT, John, 10, 258799
DAUNT, William junior, 4, 258795
DAVIES, Anna Maria, 13, 258800
DAVIES, Anne, 7, 258797
DAVIES, Charles, 13, 258800
DAVIES, Rebecca, 13, 258800
DAVIES, Robert Henry, 13, 258800
DAVIES, Rowland, 4, 258795
DAVIES, Simon Farthing, 13, 258800
DAVIS, Roger Green, 4/7/8, 258795/258797/258797
DAWSON, John, 12, 258800
De TOCQUEVILLE, Ernest, 3, 258795
DeBURGH, Anna, 8, 258797
DELACOUR, Robert, 13, 258800
DELANY, Anne, 4, 258795
DELANY, Barry, 4, 258795
DELANY, Catherine, 4, 258795
DELMEGE, Julius, 7/9, 258797/258798
DeMASSY, George Thomas, 8, 258797
DeMOLEYNS, Frederick William, 6/7, 258796/258797
DeMOLEYNS, Rev. William, 7, 258797
DICKSON, Richard, Rev., 3, 258795
DIXON, Henry, 5, 258796
DONOVAN, Richard, 5, 258796
DONOVAN, Richard, 13, 258800
DOWDEN, William, 4, 258795
DOWDING, Frederick, 64, 258839
DOWNING, Peter, 4, 258795
DUGGAN, Horatio Nelson, 4, 258795
DUNBAR, Rev. Wm., 12, 258800
DUNSCOMBE, Nicholas, 5, 258796
DURDIN, Thomas Garde, 64, 258839
DURHAM, James Andrew, 10, 258799
DWYER, William Barry, 6, 258796
EAGLE, Rev. George, 10, 258799
ELLIS, Conyngham, 13, 258800
ELLIS, Esther, 6, 258796
EMERY, Frederick, 13, 258800
EVANS, Anna, 7, 258797
EVANS, Elizabeth, 7/13, 258797/258800
EVANS, Elystan Eyre, 7, 258797
EVANS, Henry Frederick, 7, 258797
EVANS, John D’Arcy, 7/12, 258797/258800
EVANS, John Freke, 7, 258797
EVANS, Roger Bernard, 12, 258800
EVANS, Sophia, 7, 258797
EVANS, Thomas Darcy, 9, 258798
EVANS, Thomas Walker Eyre, 12, 258800
EXHAM, Thomas, 7, 258797
EYRE, Thomas, 6, 258796
EYRE, Thomas Joseph, 9/10, 258798/258799
FAGAN, William, 7, 258797
FALKINER, Samuel Edmond, 11, 258799
FARRELL, Stephen Anster, Rev., 3, 258795
FERGUSON, John, 7/9, 258797/258798
FITTON, Terence, 3, 258795
FITZGERALD, Anne, 4, 258795
FITZGERALD, John Judkin, 5, 258796
FITZGERALD, Robert Uniake Penrose, 8, 258797
FITZGERALD, Thomas Judkin, 5, 258796
FITZGIBBON, William, 3, 258795
FITZSIMONS, Sarah Maria, 6, 258796
FITZSIMONS, Walter, 6, 258796
FLEMING, Thomas Somerville, 4, 258795
FLYNN, Anna Matilda, 6, 258796
FLYNN, Margaret Isabella, 6, 258796
FOLEY, Daniel Bartholomew, 3, 258795
FOLEY, William, 3, 258795
FOOT, Mary, 6, 258796
FOOT, Thomas, 6, 258796
FORREST, John King, 12, 258800
FOSS, Christopher Vaughan, 7, 258797
FREEMAN, Edward Deane, 7, 258797
FRENCH, John, 13, 258800
GAMBIER, Sir Edward John, 3, 258795
GARDE, John D., 11/64, 258799/258839
GARDE, Richard D., the Younger, 11/64, 258799/258839
GARDE, Richard Davis, 64, 258839
GARDE, Thomas, 10, 258799
GIBBINGS, Bartholomew, 8, 258797
GIBBINGS , Rev. Thomas, 6, 258796
GIBBONS, James Barry, 3, 258795
GIBSON, John, 12, 258800
GILLESPIE, Catherine, 8, 258797
GILLESPIE, Henry, 8, 258797
GILLESPIE, William, 8, 258797
GILLMAN, Benjamin Hill, 4, 258795
GILLMAN, Edward, 13, 258800
GILLMAN, Elizabeth Davis, 8, 258797
GILLMAN, Hill, 4, 258795
GILLMAN, Thomas, 8, 258797
GILTRAP, James John, 5, 258796
GLEASURE, Peter, 6, 258796
GLOVER, Edward, 8, 258797
GLOVER, George, 8, 258797
GLOVER, George Freeman, 8, 258797
GLOVER, John Power, 8, 258797
GLOVER, Robert Mitchell, 8, 258797
GLOVER, Susan, 8, 258797
GOING, William, 3, 258795
GOOLD, Catherine Anne, 8, 258797
GOOLD, George, 7, 258797
GOOLD, Henry Valentine, 7, 258797
GOOLD, Lucinda, 8, 258797
GOOLD, Richard Thomas, 8, 258797
GOULD, John, 5, 258796
GRANT, Jasper, Rev., 3, 258795
GREEN, Peter Hennis, 7, 258797
GREENE, James, 4, 258795
GUBBINS, Averina, 8, 258797
GUBBINS, Letitia, 8, 258797
GWYNNE, Rev. George, 6, 258796
HACKETT, Bartholomew James, 11, 258799
HACKETT, Dominic, 11, 258799
HACKETT, Maria, 11, 258799
HACKETT, William, 11, 258799
HALFORD, Charles Douglas, 3, 258795
HAMILTON, James, 6, 258796
HAMILTON, John, 13, 258800
HAMMOND, James, 13, 258800
HANA, William, 10, 258799
HANLEY, Richard, 6, 258796
HANNING, James, 8, 258797
HARRINGTON, Honoria, 4, 258795
HAYES, John, 6, 258796
HENDLEY, Caroline, 6, 258796
HENDLEY, Eliza, 6, 258796
HENDLEY, Francis, 6, 258796
HENDLEY, Mary Jane, 6, 258796
HENDLEY, Mathias Christopher, 6, 258796
HENDLEY, Robert, 6, 258796
HENDLEY, Roger, 6, 258796
HENDLEY, William Spread, 6, 258796
HENNESSY, Jane, otherwise Waring, 4, 258795
HENNESSY, Martin, 4, 258795
HERRICK, Henrietta, 4, 258795
HERRICK, Isabella Shaw, 4, 258795
HERRICK, John, 4, 258795
HERRICK, John Edward, 4, 258795
HERRICK, Louisa, 4, 258795
HEWAT, Thomas, 5, 258796
HEWSON, George, 6, 258796
HICKIE, James Percy, 3, 258795
HICKIE, William Patrick Lewis, 3, 258795
HILL, Margaret Anne, 6, 258796
HOARE, Edward Wallis, 10, 258799
HOARE, Sir Edward, 6/10, 258796/258799
HOLMES, Francis Edward, 6, 258796
HOOPS, Eliza, 7, 258797
HOPKINS, Rev. John Wright, 7/8, 258797/258797
HORAN, James, 5, 258796
HORNIBROOK, Thomas, 5, 258796
HUMPRIES, Walter, 6, 258796
HUNGERFORD, Alexander George, 12, 258800
HUNGERFORD, Catherine, 12, 258800
HUNGERFORD, Jane, 8, 258797
HUNGERFORD, Thomas, 12, 258800
HUNGERFORD, Thomas Walter, 12, 258800
HUNTER, William, 4, 258795
HYDE, John, 7, 258797
HYDE, William Lane, 6, 258796
INGRAM, Catherine, 5, 258796
JAGOE, Anne, 4, 258795
JAGOE, Joshua Richard, 4, 258795
JAGOE, Samuel, 4, 258795
JAMES, Charles Henry, 8, 258797
JAMESON, Colin B., 12, 258800
JAMESON, Richard Longfield, 3, 258795
JARDINE, Sir William, 12, 258800
JAUNCEY, John Knight, 6, 258796
JAUNCEY, Martha Wilhelmina, 6, 258796
JEFFERS, Benjamin, 4, 258795
JEFFERS, Jane Elizabeth, 4, 258795
JEFFERS, John, 4, 258795
JEFFREYS, John, 4, 258795
JERNINGHAM, Edmond, 7, 258797
JERVOIS, Charlotte, the Younger, 4, 258795
JERVOIS, Mathew O Hea, 4, 258795
JOHN, Margaret, 7/8, 258797/258797
JOHN, Robert McClure, 7/8, 258797/258797
JOHNSON, James, 4, 258795
JOHNSON, Jane, 5, 258796
JOHNSON, Thomas, 8, 258797
JOHNSON, William R., 5, 258796
JOHNSON, William Rogers, 8, 258797
JOHNSTON, Anna Maria, 13, 258800
JONES, Harry, 12/13, 258800/258800
JONES, Reverend Francis, 13, 258800
KELLER, Thomasine Eliza, 13, 258800
KEMMIS, Catherine, 7, 258797
KENMARE, Valentine, Earl of, 7, 258797
KINGSTON, Robert, Earl of, 7/9/10, 258797/258798/258799
KINGSTON, Thomas, 12, 258800
KIRCHOFFER, Richard Boyle, Rev., 4, 258795
KNIGHT, Edward Ellis, 3, 258795
LANDER, Eliza, 3, 258795
LANDER, James, 3, 258795
LANDER, Jonas, 3, 258795
LANDER, William, 3, 258795
LANE, Denis, 8, 258797
LANE, Samuel, 3, 258795
LANE, William, 3, 258795
LARGE, Stewart, 3, 258795
LAW, John, 10, 258799
LAWDER, C.H., 10, 258799
LAWDER, Christopher Hume (p.2 & 3), 3/4/7/8/12, 258795/258795/258797/258797/258800
LAWLESS, Philip, 4, 258795
LAWLOR, Hugh, 3, 258795
LEADER, Eliza, 4, 258795
LEAHY, Richard, 8, 258797
LECHMERE, William, 6, 258796
LIMRICK, John, 4, 258795
LINDSAY, Joseph Woodley, 7, 258797
LUKEY, George Bevan, 10, 258799
LYSAGHT, James, 8, 258797
LYSAGHT, James, 13, 258800
LYSAGHT, John Nicholas, 8, 258797
LYSAGHT, Rebecca, 8, 258797
LYSAGHT, Thomas, 13, 258800
MacDONNELL, John, 7, 258797
MacMAHON, Augustus, 6, 258796
MANLEY, Bernard, 6, 258796
MANNIX, Chalotte [sic], 3, 258795
MANNIX, Henry, 11, 258799
MANNIX, William, 3/11, 258795/258799
MANSFIELD, Michael, 6, 258796
MARTIN, Henrietta, 3, 258795
MARTIN, Richard Alymer, 3, 258795
MASSY, Catherine, 8, 258797
MASSY, Jane, 8, 258797
MASSY, Sarah, 8, 258797
MATHEWS, Thomas Bertrand, 13, 258800
MAYBURY, Sarah, 3, 258795
MAYBURY, Thomas Hillgrove, 3, 258795
M’CARTHY, Alexander, 13, 258800
M’CARTHY, Alleyn, 13, 258800
McAULIFFE, Martha, 8, 258797
McCARTHY, Daniel, 4, 258795
McCARTHY, Elizabeth, 4, 258795
McCARTHY, Justin, 4, 258795
McCARTY, Justin, 5/10, 258796/258799
McCARTY, Robert, 10, 258799
McCLELLAND, Hugh the Younger, 4, 258795
McCRIEGHT, Mary, otherwise Baldwin, 4, 258795
McCRIEGHT, William, 4, 258795
McSWINEY, Paul, 4, 258795
MELVILLE, James Moncrieff, 3, 258795
MITCHELL, Henry Brasier, 6, 258796
M’LEOD, Robert Francis, 8, 258797
M’NEMARA, Alexander Foley, 3/6, 258795/258796
M’NEMARA, William, 12, 258800
MOCKLER, Sybella, 6, 258796
MOIR, George, 3, 258795
MOLLOY, James Scott, 3/6, 258795/258796
MONCRIEFFE, Julia Bruce, 7, 258797
MONKMAN, Anne, 10, 258799
MONKMAN, William, 10, 258799
MOODY, Susanna Roebuck, 6, 258796
MORIARTY, Catherine, 6, 258796
MORIARTY, John Newton, 3, 258795
MORLEY, Daniel, 6, 258796
MORRIS, William, 13, 258800
MOUNTCASHELL, Stephen, Earl of, 8, 258797
MOY, Francisco, 10, 258799
MOY, Georgina, 10, 258799
MOYNAHAN, Daniel James, 7, 258797
M’SWEENY, Morgan, 4, 258795
MULCHINOGH, Moses, 8, 258797
MURPHY, Anna-Maria, 4, 258795
MURPHY, Michael, 8/12, 258797/258800
MURPHY, Rev. Edmond, 8, 258797
MURRAY, Robert, 5, 258796
NAGLE, Garrett, 6, 258796
NAGLE, Pierce, 6, 258796
NAGLE, Richard, 8, 258797
NASH, Christopher Crofts, 8, 258797
NASH, George Cornwall, Rev., 4, 258795
NASH, Llewellyn, 6, 258796
NASH, Thomas, 8, 258797
NASH, Thomas James, 8, 258797
NELIGAN, David William, 13, 258800
NELIGAN, William, 13, 258800
NEWENHAM, Edward Henry, Rev., 5, 258796
NORWOOD, William John, 13, 258800
O BRIEN, Cornelius, 10, 258799
O BRIEN, Rev. Morgan, 8, 258797
O CALLAGHAN, Cornelius, 13, 258800
O CALLAGHAN, Denis, 8, 258797
O CALLAGHAN, Jeremiah, 8, 258797
O CALLAGHAN, Leslie Craggs, 3, 258795
O CALLAGHAN, Reverend Robert, 13, 258800
O CONNELL, Charles, 8, 258797
O CONNELL, Ellen Maria, 8, 258797
O CONNELL, Francis, 8, 258797
O CONNELL, John, 8, 258797
O CONNELL, William, 10, 258799
O CONNELL, William Peter, 8, 258797
O CONNOR, Daniel, 4, 258795
O CONNOR, Ellen, 4, 258795
O CONOR, Sir Richard, 10, 258799
O DELL, Anne, 8, 258797
O DONNELL, James, 6, 258796
O DONNELL, Mary, 6, 258796
O DONOGHUE, David, 11, 258799
O DONOGHUE, John, 11, 258799
O DONOGHUE, Margaret, 11, 258799
O HEA, Matthew, 10, 258799
O KEEFFE, Daniel Joseph, 4, 258795
O KEEFFE, Mary, 6, 258796
O REGAN, Catherine, 12, 258800
O REGAN, Edward, 12, 258800
OLIVER, Charles Dean, 6, 258796
OLIVER, Sarah Dean, 6, 258796
ORR, Robert, 8/12, 258797/258800
PARKER, Henry, 7, 258797
PARKER, Henry Francis Hastings, 7, 258797
PARKER, John Robert Theophilus Hastings, 7, 258797
PARKER, Richard Nevill, 3/8, 258795/258797
PARKINSON, Eliza, 5, 258796
PARKINSON, Henry, 5, 258796
PARKINSON, James Richard, 5, 258796
PAYE, Thomas, 11, 258799
PEARD, John Maunsell, 4/8, 258795/258797
PEARD, Marion, 4/8, 258795/258797
PEARD, Richard William, 10, 258799
PENROSE, Cooper, 13, 258800
PERROTT, John, 7/8, 258797/258797
PIGOT, David Richard, 11, 258799
PIGOT, John Edward, 11, 258799
PIGOTT, Sir Charles Robert, 5, 258796
PIKE, Ebenezer, 3, 258795
POWER, Elizabeth, 10, 258799
POWER, Pierce, 10, 258799
POWER, Richard, 10, 258799
PURCELL, Charles Denroche, 9, 258798
PURCELL, Letitia, 8, 258797
PURCELL, Richard, 9, 258798
RADLEY, Richard Henry, 5, 258796
RANCLAUD, John, 13, 258800
RANCLAUD, Martha, 13, 258800
READE, Eliza Morris, 12, 258800
READE, William Morris, 12, 258800
REBOW, John Garden, 5, 258796
REEVES, Thomas S., 5, 258796
REID, John, 12, 258800
ROBERTS, Benjamin, 4, 258795
ROBERTS, Henrietta Sarah, 12, 258800
ROBERTS, Hodder William, 6, 258796
ROBERTS, Mary, 6, 258796
ROBERTS, Michael, 3, 258795
ROBERTS, Richard, 12, 258800
ROBINSON, Edward, 3, 258795
ROCHE, Henry, 13, 258800
ROCHE, James H., 13, 258800
ROCHE, John Webb, 64, 258839
ROCHE, Lydia, 3, 258795
RODEROE, Louisa, 10, 258799
RODEROE, William, 10, 258799
ROGERS, George Alleyne, 3, 258795
ROGERS, Robert Atkins, 5, 258796
RONAN, Belinda Maria, 12, 258800
RONAYNE, Patrick, 4, 258795
RONAYNE, Robert Power, 7, 258797
RUTTLE, Michael John, 3, 258795
SADLIER, James, 9/10, 258798/258799
SADLIER, Thomas, 8, 258797
SAURIN, Mark Anthony, 64, 258839
SAVAGE, Andrew Roger, 7, 258797
SAYERS, Edward, 6, 258796
SCANLAN, Edmond, 4, 258795
SCANLAN, George, 4, 258795
SCANLAN, Johanna, 4, 258795
SCANLAN, John, 4, 258795
SCANLAN, Margaret, 4, 258795
SCANLAN, Mary, 4, 258795
SCANLAN, Peter, 4, 258795
SCANLAN, William, 4, 258795
SCOLLARD, Nicholas, 5, 258796
SEALY, John, 8, 258797
SEALY, John Thos. Hungerford, 4, 258795
SEALY, William, 8, 258797
SEYMOUR, Edward Wight, 8, 258797
SHANNON, Richard, Earl of, 7, 258797
SHEA, Denis, 3, 258795
SHEA, Luke Joseph, 10, 258799
SHEEHY, William John, 5, 258796
SHERLOCK, George, 6, 258796
SHERLOCK, Wright, 3, 258795
SMITH, John, Rev., 3, 258795
SMITH, Mathias, 12/12, 258800/258800
SMYTH, Grice Richard, 10, 258799
SMYTH, Henry, 6, 258796
SMYTH, John, 3, 258795
SMYTH, Rev. George Blakeny, 10, 258799
SMYTH, Rev. Grice Blakeny, 10, 258799
ST. LEGER, Antony Butler, 5, 258796
STANNARD, Edward, 6, 258796
STAPLES, Thomas, 8, 258797
STAWELL, George Cooper, 6, 258796
STAWELL, William, 5, 258796
SUGRUE, Charles, 11/64, 258799/258839
SULLIVAN, Jeremiah, 12, 258800
SULLIVAN, John, 4, 258795
SULLIVAN, Richard, 11, 258799
SULLIVAN, Samuel, 13, 258800
SWAYNE, Charlotte Ellen, 10, 258799
SWAYNE, Eliza, 10, 258799
SWEENY, Eugene, 4, 258795
SWETTENHAM, George Fletcher, 12, 258800
SWINEY, Anne, 5, 258796
SWINEY, Christopher Hutchinson, 5, 258796
SWINEY, Cornelius, 5/13, 258796/258800
SWINEY, Ellen, 5/13, 258796/258800
SWINEY, Frances, 5, 258796
SWINEY, Jane , 5, 258796
SYMES, Charlotte, 5, 258796
TANGNEY, Thomas, 8/10, 258797/258799
TARRANT, Jane, 9, 258798
TAYLOR, Alexander O Driscoll, 4, 258795
TAYLOR, William Stanhope, 64, 258839
TEED, John Godfrey, 7, 258797
THOMAS, George, 8, 258797
THOMOND, James, Marquis of, 64, 258839
THOMSON, William Thomas, 3, 258795
TOBIN, Michael, 3, 258795
TOPHAM, Richard, 12, 258800
TOWNSEND, Edward Richard, 4, 258795
TOWNSEND, John, 13, 258800
TOWNSEND, John Handcock, 12, 258800
TOWNSEND, John Henry, 4, 258795
TOWNSEND, Jonas Morris, 4, 258795
TOWNSEND, Rev. Thomas, 10, 258799
TOWNSEND, Samuel, 4/12, 258795/258800
TOWNSEND, Samuel Philip, 10, 258799
TOWNSEND, William, 4, 258795
TOYE, Winspear, 8, 258797
TRESILLIAN, Elizabeth, 8, 258797
TRESILLIAN, Robert, 13, 258800
TRESILLIAN, Stewart, 8, 258797
TRESILLIAN, William D., 8, 258797
UNIAKE, Norman, the Elder, 64, 258839
UNIAKE, Norman, the Younger, 64, 258839
UVEDALE, Andrew, 10, 258799
UVEDALE, Ralph, 10, 258799
UVEDALE, Samuel, 10, 258799
WALKER, Caroline, 10, 258799
WALKER, Francis Spring, 7, 258797
WALKER, Henry George, 10, 258799
WALKER, Rev. Thomas, 10, 258799
WALKER, Samuel, 10, 258799
WALKER, Thomas, 10, 258799
WALKER, Thomas Henry, 10, 258799
WALKER, Wallis Adams, 10, 258799
WALLIS, James, 3, 258795
WARE, Thomas, 4, 258795
WARNER, Gustavus, 7, 258797
WARREN, Lemuel Ebenezer, 8, 258797
WARREN, Robert, 13, 258800
WATERS, George, junior, 3, 258795
WEBB, Stawell, 8, 258797
WELDON, Sir Anthony, 12, 258800
WELPLY, William, 12, 258800
WESTROPP, Henry Bruen, 12, 258800
WHEATLEY, John Hewitt, 5, 258796
WHEELER, John, 4, 258795
WHITE, Alicia Olivia, 8, 258797
WHITE, Anna Maria, 8, 258797
WHITE, Charles Henry, 8, 258797
WHITE, Charlotte Mary Dorman, 12, 258800
WHITE, Edmond, 7, 258797
WHITE, Edward John, 8, 258797
WHITE, Elizabeth, 8, 258797
WHITE, Elizabeth Warren Lucy, 8, 258797
WHITE, Frances Maria, 8, 258797
WHITE, Francis James, 8, 258797
WHITE, Hamilton, 8, 258797
WHITE, Henrietta Sarah, 12, 258800
WHITE, Henry, 8/10, 258797/258799
WHITE, Richard, 8, 258797
WHITE, Rosa Elinor, 8, 258797
WHITE, Walter, 8, 258797
WILLES, Mary Anne, 3, 258795
WILLES, William, 3, 258795
WILLIAMS, Carden Terry, 8, 258797
WILLIAMS, Humphrey Evans, 8, 258797
WILLIAMS , John, 8, 258797
WILLIAMS, Rev. John St. George, 8, 258797
WILLIAMS, Samuel, 8, 258797
WILLIAMS, Sarah, 8, 258797
WOODLEY, Francis, 4, 258795
WOODROOFE, ?, 4, 258795
WORRALL, Monsell, 8, 258797
WRIGHT, Charles, 8, 258797
WRIXON, Nicholas, 8, 258797
YOUNG, John, 8, 258797
YOUNG, Sylvester, 7, 258797

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

VOLUME 3

LANDHOLDER ESTATE LOCATION DATE OF SALE

1. James Chapman BELL, assignee of Hugh LAWLOR, an insolvent, Owner, exparte Hugh ADAMS, petitioner- Several houses & tenements, situate at Bandon Road, Rochfort’s Lane, & Crowley’s Lane, Parish of St. Finbarr’s, City of Cork- 16 January 1852 (no maps).

2. William Patrick Lewis HICKIE; James Percy HICKIE, minors, Owners, exparte Rev. Jasper GRANT, Richard Nevill PARKER, and Stewart LARGE, petitioners- Houses and Premises situate Bridge Street and Coburg Street, City of Cork- 12 October 1852- (no maps).

3. Edward ROBINSON, of City of Cork, Attorney at law, and James Scott MOLLOY, his assignee, Owners, exparte George MOIR, James Moncreiff MELVILLE, and William Thomas THOMSON, petitioners- 10 dwelling houses situate at Sidney Terrace, city of Cork, known as nos. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 & 10 Belgrave Place- 7 May 1850 (lot map).

4. George Alleyne ROGERS, Owner & Petitioner- The Theatre Royal, situate in George’s Street, city of Cork, and houses nos. 30 & 31 George’s Street, incl. House and premises no. 74 South Mall, Cork City- 17 June 1858- (lot maps).

5. Richard BEAMISH, trustee of William WILLES, deceased, Owner, Mary Anne WILLES, petitioner- Stores, Houses & Premises situate in Academy Street, Paul Street, & French Church Street, City of Cork- 18 February 1858 (lot map).

6. Chalotte [sic] MANNIX,& William MANNIX, an infant, Owners, exparte John CARROLL, Barcroft Haughton CARROLL & William CARROLL, trustees of the Will of Sarah CARROLL, deceased, by petition- Kilcully; Muckridge Close, known as part of Copper Alley; premises in the North Main Street, Youghal; Swordbeare’s Close, called Brook Lodge; nos. 78 & 79 North Main Street, Youghal; 13, 14, & 15 South Main Street, Youghal; no. 86 Grand Parade, City of Cork; lot in Fair Lane, Mannix’s Square or Colling’s Green; lots in Old Market Place, called St. John’s of Jerusalem and part of same called Cattle Lane- 26 May 1857 (no maps).

7. Charles CLERY, John Thomas CLERY, William CLERY, George CLERY, Anne CLERY, Maria CLERY, Helena CLERY, Richard CLERY, Joseph Bernard CLERY, Thomas CLERY, The Rev. Edward CLERY, & Henry CLERY, Owners and Petitioners- Premises called Catfort, otherwise Annemount, Parish of St. Nicholas, city of Cork, several dwelling houses- 29 June 1858- (no maps).

8. William Appleby CLIFTON, assignee of Samuel ABBOTT, an Insolvent, Owner, exparte, Lydia ROCHE, John George ABBOTT, Samuel ABBOTT, & Charlotte ABBOTT, Petitioners- Brewery, Steam flour & malt mills, Malt houses, Stores & Dwelling house known as the Fitton Street Brewery, Cork City; two houses and premises on Spy Hill Terrace, Queenstown, Barony of Barrymore; Mill and Mill Lands of Ardorostig, situate in Barony of Cork- 10 July 1858- (lot maps).

9. Daniel Bartholomew FOLEY & William FOLEY, Owners, exparte, James Barry GIBBONS, in the Matter of the Estate of Daniel Bartholomew FOLEY, & the Rev. Stephen Anster FARRELL, Owners, James Barry GIBBONS, petitioner- Houses situate on Pouladuff Rd., Barrack Street & Evergreen Street, City of Cork; Part lands of Ballynagoul; Part lands of Killeenagh- 28 October 1858- (lot maps).

10. William GOING, Owner and Petitioner- Dwelling houses, 17, 18 & 19 John Street; 70, 71 & 72 Dominick Street; 20 John Street; & 68, 69 Dominick Street, city of Cork- 14 July 1859- (no lot maps).

11. Thomas Hillgrove MAYBURY & George WATERS, junior, assignee of John Newton MORIARTY, an insolvent, & Sarah MAYBURY & Michael BARRY, her trustee, or some or one of them, Michael John RUTTLE, petitioner- [note-holdings include lands in Cork & Kerry, only Cork concerns here copied] Houses & premises situate south of Church Yard Lane, Parish St. Mary’s, Shandon, & North Suburbs, city of Cork- 10 November 1859- (no maps).

12. Frederick Marcus CALLAGHAN, Esq., Owner & others, exparte Richard CALLAGHAN, Esq., continued in the name of Alexander Foley M’NEMARA, Esq., petitioner- The Glen Distillery & premises; Part of the Lands of Ballintemple- 27 April 1855- (lot map).

13. Christopher Hume LAWDER, provisional assignee of Edward Ellis KNIGHT, Owner, James AHERN, petitioner- Lands of Ballinamought, called Mount Prospect or Lough View, situate in the North Liberties of Cork- 6 February 1852- (no maps).

14. Edward Richard CUMMINS, Frederick Joseph CUMMINS, William Henry CUMMINS, Arthur Bettesworth CUMMINS, Devisees of Joseph King CUMMINS, deceased & of CharlotteCUMMINS, James John CUMMINS, Executor & Executrix of said Joseph King CUMMINS, continued as to said Joseph Frederick CUMMINS, in the name of Thomas Mannix CUMMINS, his Heir-at-Law, exparte John SMYTH, petitioner- Ballycrenan; Part Ballinamought; Part Lotabeg, Myrtleville, Kilmichael & three houses in Wellington Place, Cork- 15 June 1854- (lot maps).

15. Frederick Marcus CALLAGHAN, Louisa Margaretta CALLAGHAN, Richard CALLAGHAN & John Edward CALLAGHAN, Owners, exparte, Richard CALLAGHAN, petitioner- premises situate Alfred Street, & Penrose Quay, Parish of St. Anne Shandon, city of Cork; Glanmire, part lands of Poulacurry- 26 July 1850- (no maps).

16. C.H. LAWDER, assignee of James WALLIS, an insolvent, Owner, exparte John Thos. CLEARY & Another, petitioner- Premises Evergreen Street & Bandon Road, in city of Cork- 20 October 1856- (lot maps).

17. John Newton MORIARTY, an Insolvent, continued in the name of George WATERS, junior, his Assignee, and of Thomas Hillgrove MAYBURY, Owners, Ebenezer PIKE, petitioner- premises Mallow Lane, now called Clarence Street, partly in Hillgrove Lane, partly in Allnutt’s Lane & partly on the Watercourse, in the Parish of St. Anne Shandon, city of Cork- 11 February 1858- (lot map).

18. Henrietta MARTIN, widow & Administratrix of Richard Alymer MARTIN, deceased, Owner, exparte Hedges Eyre CHATTERTON, petitioner- Dwelling houses & premises situate on Lavitt’s Island, now the South Mall; Parliament Street & Charlotte Quay, city of Cork- 17 June 1853- (no map).

19. William LANE, assignee of Samuel LANE, deceased, Owner, exparte Wright SHERLOCK, Petitioner- nos. 13 & 14 Winthrop Street, city of Cork- 4 July 1851- (no maps).

20. Dame Henrietta Georgiana Marcia CHATTERTON, Owner and petitioner- Several lots in city of Cork; North Main Street; Grand Parade; Tuckey Street; Mills Street otherwise Fishamble Lane; Coal Quay; South Mall; Parliament Street & Patrick Street, in the Parish of Holy Trinity (Christ Church), Saint Peter’s & St. Paul’s- 1 December 1857- (lot maps).

21. William LANDER, (since deceased, continued in the name of Eliza LANDER, as his representative, under order of 26 Feb. 1855), James LANDER, and Jonas LANDER, Owners and petitioners- Part lands of Grange, Parish of Carrigaline; Houses and premises situate at Kinsale; Part lands of Mahon; Part lands of Ballinamought; Houses on Grand Parade, in Nile Street, James Street, Nicholas Street, George’s Street, Mallow Lane, Rutland Street and Montpellier Terrace, all in city of Cork- 16 November 1855- (no maps).

22. Leslie Craggs O CALLAGHAN, Esq., Owner and Petitioner- Houses at Hanover Street, Parish of St. Peter’s; Wood’s Lane; Christ Church Lane; all in city of Cork; Lands of Clashnascoub and Ballinure, otherwise Besborough; Dwelling house on the Mardyke, or, Red House Walk; Lot in Carrigrohane; & Lands of Ashegrove, otherwise Leaseland- 26 June 1858- (lot maps).

23. Ernest DeTOCQUEVILLE, of Bordeaux, in the Republic of France, Devisee of Richard BEARE, late of Copstown, in the county of Cork, deceased, Owner, exparte William FITZGIBBON of Sidney House, in city of Cork, Esq., petitioner- Killeen, alias Ballygurrane alias Copstown; Glankittane; Ballintemple, and Half-Moon Street (Cork)- 20 October 1851- (no maps).

24. Christopher Hume LAWDER, Assignee of Rev. John SMITH, an Insolvent, Owner, exparte Michael TOBIN, petitioner- Houses and premises situate in George’s Street, Merchant’s Quay, and the South Mall, city of Cork- 13 November 1857 (no maps).

25. Terence FITTON, Owner, exparte Denis SHEA, petitioner- Plot of ground, being part of the Lands of Evergreen in the south suburbs of city of Cork- 17 November 1857- (lot map).

26. Richard Longfield JAMESON, Esq., Owner and petitioner- Houses and premises situate on South Mall, Morrison’s Quay, Queen Street and Logan Street, in the city of Cork and at Blackrock- 20 January 1859- (no maps).

27. Frederick Marcus CALLAGHAN, & Others, Owners, exparte Richard CALLAGHAN, petitioner- Glanmire Mills; Offices, stores and premises on the South Mall and Beazley Street, city of Cork- 15 October 1851- (no maps).

28. Dame Henrietta Georgiana Marcia CHATTERTON, Sir Edward John GAMBIER, & The Rev. Richard DICKSON, Owners, exparte Charles Douglas HALFORD, petitioner- in city of Cork, Paul Street and Brown Street, in Parish of St. Paul; Part lands of Ballinfellick, Parish of Dunderrow; in city of Cork, South Terrace, (formerly called Morrison’s Place), and Warwick Street in Parish of St. Nicholas; Houses situate in George’s Street, Caroline Street, & Pinchin’s Lane in Parish of Holy Trinity; Lands of Illane Roe, otherwise Red Island in Barony of Cork; in city of Cork, George’s Street and Grafton’s Alley, Duncan Street, Nile Street, Broad Street; Part lands of Farranmacteighe (held by lease from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for Ireland); in city of Cork, Dean Street, Parish of St. Finn Barr’s; Lands of Mahon- 1 December 1857- (lot maps & illustrations).

29. Michael ROBERTS, Owner and petitioner- in city of Cork, dwellings at Prince’s Street; Part lands of Knockanemore; Bride (flour) mills & premises, Barony of East Muskerry; Carrigaline Mills and mill lands; Part of town of Carrigaline; Lands of Beaver (otherwise Coolmiller); Part of lands of Kilnagleary called Boherboy, Barony of Kerricurrihy; Parcels of lands of Kilmoney, Parish of Tracton- 12 October 1858- (lot maps).

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

VOLUME 4

1. Eugene SWEENY & Honoria HARRINGTON, or either of them, Owners, exparte James GREENE, petitioner- Houses and premises situate at Castletown, in Barony of Bere- 19 March 1858- (no maps).

2. John Richard Hedges BECHER, Esq., Owner and petitioner- Portion of lands of Hollybrook, known as Hollybrook House & Desmense, Parish of Abbeystrowry, Barony of West Carbery- 16 April 1858- (lot map).

3. Edward Baldwin BECHER, Esq. And of George BECHER, Esq. (deceased), continued in the name of the said Edward Baldwin BECHER, Owner, exparte Alicia Gahan BECHER, continued in the names of Samuel TOWNSEND, and Patrick RONAYNE, Esq., petitioners- Lands of Hare Island and Mutton Island (a subdenomination); Curravoley; Lisaclarigmore; Lisaclarigbeg; East Skeams & South Marahin, barony of West Carbery; also Lands of Rathruanemore; Rathruanebeg; Quoleaghmore; Quoleabeg & Banaknuckane- 5 May 1854- (lot maps).

4. Jonas Morris TOWNSEND and John Henry TOWNSEND, Owners, exparte John LIMRICK, petitioner- Lands of Ballinatona, Coursecroneen and Ardra- 26 November 1850- (no map).

5. Alexander O Driscoll TAYLOR, a minor, Owner, exparte Daniel McCARTHY, petitioner- Lands of Drishane; Shountallagh, otherwise Laharn, and Madora, barony of West Carbery- 15 July 1851- (no maps).

6. Daniel O CONNOR, Joshua Richard JAGOE, Samuel JAGOE, Anne JAGOE and Ellen O CONNOR, Owner, Thomas Somerville FLEMING, petitioner- Lands of Knockavolig; Cloderagh; Dereengrenough; West Caheragolane; Ardra and East Caheragolane, barony of West Carbery- 15 June 1857- (lot maps).

7. Charlotte JERVOIS, the Younger, Francis WOODLEY and James JOHNSON, Assignee of Samuel JERVOIS, and MathewO Hea JERVOIS, Insolvents, Owners, exparte John ALLEN, FrancisALLEN, Daniel McCARTHY, Maria ALLEN, Eliza ALLEN and Catherine ALLEN, petitioners- Lands of Ballinringlanig, Parish of Nohaval, barony of Kinalea- 17 January 1856- (lot map).

8. Rev. George C NASH, Owner, exparte John WHEELER, petitioner- Lands of Brinny, barony of Kinalea- 19 October 1854- (no maps).

9. Horatio Nelson DUGGAN, Assignee of Edmond SCANLAN, an Insolvent, the said Edmond SCANLAN Executor of Peter DOWNING, Anne FITZGERALD, widow, Barry DELANY, CatherineDELANY, and Anne DELANY, William SCANLAN, now deceased, continued in the names of John SCANLAN, Peter SCANLAN, George SCANLAN, Mary SCANLAN, Margaret SCANLAN, Johanna SCANLAN, Ellenor BOURKE and James BOURKE, or some or one of them, Owners, Paul McSWINEY, petitioner- Mill & Mill Lands of Ballindinisk and Belgooley, otherwise Lyle, Parish of Kilmonoge, barony of Kinalea- 29 May 1857- (illustrations & lot map).

10. Charles COTTRELL, Assignee of Jane Elizabeth JEFFERS, Owner, exparte William DAUNT, junior, surviving Executor of Benjamin ROBERTS, deceased, petitioner- Donneen North, Parish of Ballymartle, barony of Kinalea- 9 May 1855- (lot map).

11. Charlotte JERVOIS, the Younger, Francis WOODLEY, and James JOHNSON, Assignee of Samuel JERVOIS, and MathewO Hea JERVOIS, Insolvents, Owners, exparte John ALLEN, FrancisALLEN, Daniel McCARTHY, Maria ALLEN, Eliza ALLEN and Catherine ALLEN, petitioners- Lands of Ballinringlanig, Parish of Nohaval, barony of Kinalea; also Lands of Kilcussane, Parish of Kilfaughnabeg, West Division barony of East Carbery- 11 October 1855- (lot maps).

12. Justin McCARTHY, Owner, Anna-Maria MURPHY, petitioner- Lands of Gortatagill, otherwise Ryefield, barony of Barrymore- 7 November 1856- (lot map).

13. Robert BAILEY, Assignee of The Rev. Peter BROWNE, Owner, exparte, WOODROOFE, petitioner- Lands of Lisfihill, barony of Kinalea- 26 June 1857- (lot map).

14. Rev. George Cornwall NASH, Owner, exparte, John WHEELER, petitioner- Lands of Clashanimod, barony of Kinalea; Lands of Twoghicushin, barony of East Muskerry; Lands of Kilbane and Knocknaheily, barony of East Muskerry- 16 May 1857- (lot maps).

15. John Thomas Hungerford SEALY, Owner, exparte Edward Richard TOWNSEND and James CARNEGIE, petitioners- Lands of West Kilcoleman; Lands of East Kilcoleman; Lands of part of East Gully, all in barony of Kinalmeaky- 26 October 1854- (lot maps).

16. Anna BELCHER, widow, Hester Waring BELCHER, William BELCHER, John Waring BELCHER,John Tresillian BELCHER & William DOWDEN, Owners, exparte Alice BELCHER, petitioner- Tulligmore & Tulligbeg, barony of Kerricurrihy- 10 June 1852- (lot maps).

17. Hill GILLMAN, Owner, exparte Charles DALY, petitioner- Part of lands of Ardkilly, otherwise Sandycove, barony of Kinsale- 10 October 1857- (no map).

18. Robert BICKFORD, an infant, Owner, The Reverend Richard Boyle KIRCHOFFER, petitioner- Liscahanbeg; Blackhorsefield called Goughs Park; Ardmartin; House in the town of Kinsale, barony of Kinsale- 9 August 1851, revised to 7 October 1851- (no maps).

19. Marion PEARD, owner and petitioner- Lands of Glanatore, barony of Kinnatalloon- 2 November 1855- (no map).

20. John Maunsell PEARD, Esq., Owner and petitioner- Lands of Glanatore; Lands of Carrigeen- 27 April 1858- (no maps).

21. William McCRIEGHT, and Mary McCRIEGHT, otherwise BALDWIN, his wife, John HERRICK, Martin HENNESSY, and Jane HENNESSY, otherwise WARING, his wife, and which said Jane is Executrix of Henry BALDWIN, deceased, Louisa HERRICK, John Edward HERRICK, Isabella Shaw HERRICK, Henrietta HERRICK, Eliza LEADER, Herbert BALDWIN, HerbertBALDWIN, the Younger, and Elizabeth McCARTHY, Owners, exparte, Martin HENNESSY and Jane HENNESSY, his wife- Lands of Lisnegat, barony of Kinalmeaky- 15 October 1857- (no maps).

22. William HUNTER, Owner, exparte, Roger Green DAVIS & others, petitioners- Part lands of Derrygariffe, otherwise West Rough Grove, barony of Kinalmeaky- 5 June 1857- (no map).

23. John BOWEN, Esq., Owner and petitioner- House and Desmense lands of Roundhill, barony of Kinalmeaky- 4 June 1855- (no map).

24. John SULLIVAN, William TOWNSEND and Morgan M’SWEENY, Owners, exparte Daniel Joseph O KEEFFE, petitioner- Dwelling house and premises situate in the town of Kinsale- 1st March 1853- (no map).

25. Mary BRIBOSIA, wife of Francis BRIBOSIA, Esq., Owner. The said Mary BRIBOSIA, by Philip LAWLESS, her next friend, petitioner- Lands of Curriglass and Lisnabrin; Lands of Ballynakelly, alias Glengariff; Lands of Munee, or Muneedleigh- 29 June 1859- (no maps).

26. Benjamin JEFFERS, John JEFFREYS, John JEFFERS, Hugh McCLELLAND, the Younger, and Christopher Hume LAWDER, Owners, exparte Rowland DAVIES, petitioner- Lands of East Ballygarvan, barony of Kerricurrihy- 12 November 1857- (no map).

27. Benjamin Hill GILLMAN, Owner and petitioner- Part lands of Sandycove, otherwise Ardkelly, barony of Kinsale- 9 May 1854- (lot map).

28. Thomas WARE, Owner and petitioner- Farranivane and Lisnabauree; also house situate in Castle Street, Parish of Holy Trinity, city of Cork- 1 March 1851

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

VOLUME 5

1. Elizabeth AUSTEN & Thomas HEWAT, owners, exparte, William STAWELL, petitioner- Poulacurrihy, near Glanmire in Barony of Cork-9 March 1858 (no maps).

2. Henry DIXON, owner and petitioner – Rockborough, Parish of St. Nicholas, part City of Cork- 7 January 1856 (lot map).

3. Rev. Edward Henry NEWENHAM, owner and petitioner – Ballincranig, Gurtagowlane, Lands of Lehenaghmore, Barony of Cork-17 April 1857 (lot maps).

4. Hatton Ronanyne CONRON, owner and petitioner – Ballincollig, otherwise Colligtown, Barony of Cork- 29 June 1858 (lot maps).

5. Peter Robert BURELL, Esq. & John Garden REBOW, Esq., Trustees of Sir Charles Robert PIGOTT, Bart., owners and petitioners – Curriheen, Ardarostig, Ballinuskig, Knockalisheen, Ballinlough, Killeenreendowney, Knockmullane, Rathnaroughy- 26 May 1857 (lot maps).

6. Cornelius SWINEY, Ellen SWINEY, owners, exparte Mary CURTIS & Henry CURTIS, petitioners- Carrigrohane, Barony of Cork, & Barnagore, otherwise Ovens, Barony of East Muskerry, & Drumkeen West, Barony of East Carbery- 17 December 1858 (no maps).

7. Nicholas SCOLLARD, Ellen SWINEY, Frances SWINEY, Cornelius SWINEY, Anne SWINEY, Jane SWINEY, Richard DONOVAN, Christopher Hutchinson SWINEY, John CASHMAN and said Richard DONOVAN, Executors of Cornelius SWINEY, owners, exparte, Denis CONNOR, Catherine CONNOR, & Ellen CONNOR, petitioners- Ashegrove, otherwise Gurtagowlane, Barony of Cork & Doughcloyne, Barony of Cork- 5 March 1853 (lot maps).

8. James HORAN, Assignee of Sir John Judkin FITZGERALD, owner, exparte James Richard PARKINSON, Eliza PARKINSON, His Wife, Henry PARKINSON, Catherine INGRAM, & Thomas S.REEVES, petitioners- Currybehy, otherwise Currybehig, otherwise Currabaha, Barony of Barrett’s- 2 April 1852 (lot maps).

9. Samuel George BEAMISH, Adam Newman BEAMISH, William Henry BEAMISH & George Gibson CUMMING, owners, exparte Robert MURRAY, petitioner- Ballinamona, Barony of Barrett’s- 12 November 1857 (lot maps).

10. Samuel George BEAMISH, Adam Newman BEAMISH, William Henry BEAMISH & George Gibson CUMMING, owners, exparte Robert MURRAY, petitioner- Ballinamona, Barony of Barrett’s, including One-third lands of Manlenaskimnahane, Barony of Barrett’s & East Division of East Carbery- 20 November 1856 (lot maps).

11. Mrs. Charlotte SYMES, owner and petitioner – Carrigduff, Barony of Barrett’s- 6 August 1850 (no maps).

12. Robert Atkins ROGERS, owner, exparte Jane JOHNSON, continued in name of William R. JOHNSON, petitioner- Longstone, Knockanroe, Coolowen, and Barony of Barrett’s & Cork- 4 November 1858 (lot maps).

13. Samuel George BEAMISH, [note-the next 3 names handwritten], Adam Newman BEAMISH, Wm. Henry BEAMISH and George Gibson CUMMING, owners, exparte Robert MURRAY- Lands of Ballinamona, Barony of Barrett’s- 7 May 1857 (lot map).

14. John BARRY of Knockrour, in the County of Cork, owner and petitioner – Lands of Oughtihery, in Parish of Ahabulogue, Barony of East Muskerry- 3 November 1858 (lot map).

15. John Henry COLTHURST, heir-at-law to John Bowen COLTHURST, Esq., late of Dripsey Castle, in the County of Cork, Insolvent & James ANGLIN, Assignee of said John Bowen COLTHURST, owner, exparte Francis ALLEN, petitioner- several freehold estates in Barony’s of East Muskerry & Barrett’s, Carrignamuck, Lackennaghter, Callas, Court, Ballygally, Ahreenagh, Cronodybeg- 25 October 1851 (no maps).

16. William CALLANAN Esq. Carried in the names of William CALLANAN, and Susanna CALLANAN, devisees of said William CALLANAN, deceased, owners and petitioners – Rerour & Knockanleigh, Barony of East Muskerry- 22 June 1857 (lot maps).

17. Henry Thorne COPPINGER, owner and petitioner – Carhue, Coultimorroghue, Keelteenagh, Barony of east Muskerry- 17 April 1856 (illustration and lot maps).

18. Justin McCARTY, owner, exparte Nicholas DUNSCOMBE, petitioner- Cloughphillip, Barony of East Muskerry- 10 January 1851 (no map).

19. James John GILTRAP, Administrator of Charles CONNELL, deceased, owner, exparte William John SHEEHY, petitioner- Lands of Dysart, Myshell & Tullig, Barony of East Muskerry & Lands of Carhue, Barony of Cork- 17 April 1858 (no maps).

20. Richard Henry RADLEY, owner, exparte Henry BIGGS, petitioner- Lands of Upper and Lower Knockrour, Barony of East Muskerry- 12 October 1858 (lot maps).

21. John Hewitt WHEATLEY Esq., owner and petitioner- Garryhestie, Farranavarragh, Knockanemore & Mahery, Barony of East Muskerry; Annaghmore & Kilmenoge, Barony of Kinalea; Brinny, Lisaniska, Dunkereen, Ballycoughlan, Ballinloughy now called Scart, Arlandstown and Coolcullitagh, Barony of Kinalea; Rathmaculig East, Barony of Cork; Melefonstown, Barony of Kinsale, and Ballynamona, Barony of Kinsale- 3 December 1858 (lot maps).

22. Thomas HORNIBROOK, Esq., owner and petitioner- Corran, Barony of East Muskerry- 31 May 1853, revised to 24 June 1853. (lot map).

23. Thomas Judkin FITZGERALD, Esq., owner and petitioner – Coolflugh, Gortdonaghmore, Kileen, Dromin, Barony of East Muskerry- 4 December 1857 (lot maps).

24. Richard Henry RADLEY, owner, John GOULD, (since deceased) & Edward BARRY, continued in the name of Edward BARRY, surviving petitioner, petitioners- Lands of Ughtiherrymore & Ughtiherrybeg, Barony of East Muskerry- 15 April 1853 (no maps).

25. Daniel CONNER Esq., owner and petitioner, – Mashnaglass, Parish of Ahena, PLU Macroom, Barony of East Muskerry; Rosnacalp, Parish of Ahena, PLU Macroom, Barony of East Muskerry; Rathcullen, Parish of Kilbolane, PLU Bandon; Derrivecorneen, Parish of Inchigeela, PLU Dunmanway, Barony of West Muskerry; Bahigolane, Parish of Fanlobbus, Barony of West Division of East Carbery; Collenagow, Parish of Fanlobbus, Barony of West Division of East Carbery; Lisheenleagh, Parish of Kilmichael, PLU Dunmanway; Shanlaragh, Parish of Kilmichael, PLU Dunmanway; Ardkitt, Parish Desert Serges, PLU Bandon, Barony of East Division of East Carbery; East Manch, Middle Manch & West Manch, Parish of Fanlobbus, PLU Dunmanway, Baonry of West Division of East Carbery- 9 July 1852 (lot maps).

26. Antony Butler ST. LEGER, owner and petitioner – Rathconey, Arderrow, Ballyharrune, Ballincrossig, Poulacurry, North Main Street (Cork), Coleman’s Lane (Cork), Duncan Street (Cork), Glankittane, Blarney Lane, Blair’s Hill, Bishop’s Marsh- 18 January 1851 (lot maps).

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

VOLUME 6

1. Hodder William ROBERTS, now deceased, continued in the name of John Knight J AUNCEY & Martha Wilhelmina JAUNCEY, otherwise ROBERTS, his wife, as Administratrix of said Hodder William ROBERTS, owners and petitioners- Grange, Barony of Fermoy- 19 June 1855 (lot maps).

2.Sir Edward HOARE, Baronet, owner, exparte William LECHMERE, petitioner- Couranig, Togher, Naiskin, East and West Dromerk, and part of the Lands of Annabella, Barony of Fermoy- 27 April 1855 (lot maps).

3.Mary FOOT, (widow), and Thomas FOOT, owners, exparte Walter HUMPRIES, petitioner- Shanballymore, Kilclemsky, Templeruane, Castleruane & Cloon, Barony of Fermoy- 2 April 1852 (lot maps).

4.Sarah Dean OLIVER, Rev. Thomas GIBBINGS & Rev. John ALDWORTH, trustees of will of Charles Dean OLIVER, Esq., deceased, owners and petitioners, also in the matter of estate of St. LegerALDWORTH, Esq., owner and petitioner- Rock Mills, Barony of Fermoy- 10 June 1856 (lot maps).

5.William Barry DWYER, owner, exparte Susanna Roebuck MOODY, petitioner- Slymanagh & Curraghanaltig, Barony of Fermoy- 10 July 1852 (lot maps).

6.Edmond BYRNE, Owner & James BYRNE, Petitioner- Killenuale & Scroby, otherwise Newgrove- 9 August 1851 (no map).

7.*See number 3 (same), [possible filming mistake](lot maps).

8. Edmond BYRNE, Owner & James BYRNE, Petitioner- Killenuale & Scroby, otherwise Newgrove- 19 December 1851- (no map).

9.Margaret Anne HILL, owner and petitioner – Curraghanaltig, otherwise Tullig, Barony of Fermoy- 29 June 1858 (lot map).

10.Thomas Travers ADAMS, Trustee and executor of will of Llewellyn NASH, deceased, and Thomas CARMICHAEL and James CARMICHAEL, owners, exparte George SHERLOCK, petitioner- Lands of Ballyquane and Ensinrosty, Barony of Fermoy & Blarney Lane (Cork)- 16 November 1854 (no maps).

11.Henry SMYTH, owner, exparte Thomas EYRE, petitioner- Renny Upper and Lower, Parish of Kilcummer, Barony of Fermoy- 16 May 1851 (lot maps).

12.Richard ASHE, of Ashgrove, and Alicia, his wife, James Scott MOLLOY, Assignee of said Richard ASHE, owners, exparte Thomas BARRY and Ellen BARRY, petitioners- Curraghue otherwise Corraghemore, Carrigafooka with its subdenominations East Dromony, West Dromony, Inchibricane and Cooldorihy, Baronies of Fermoy & West Muskerry- 10 December 1850 (no maps).

13.Margaret Isabella FLYNN and Anna Matilda FLYNN, a minor, owners, exparte Thomas CARMICHAEL, petitioner- House, Desmense and Lands of Killetra, otherwise Mountruby and premises at Cold Harbour, Parish of Mallow, Barony of Fermoy- 26 November 1850 (no map).

14.Edmond BARRY, owner, exparte Esther ELLIS, petitioner- Houses in New Street & Main Street, Parish of Mallow, Barony of Fermoy- 26 November 1850 (no maps).

15.William Lane HYDE, Esq., owner, exparte Augustus MacMAHON, Esq., petitioner- Castlelands of Cregg and Templenoe, subdenominations of Ballynoe- 9 July 1850 (no map).

16.William Spread HENDLEY, Robert HENDLEY, Eliza HENDLEY, Caroline HENDLEY, Mary Jane HENDLEY, and Francis HENDLEY, minors, and of Daniel MORLEY, administrator of RogerHENDLEY, deceased, and Richard HANLEY, administrator of William Spread HENDLEY, deceased, owners, exparte John HAYES, petitioner- Middle Downing, Downing South- 16 October 1855 (lot maps).

17.George Cooper STAWELL, Esq., owner and petitioner- Ballyveiniter [sic] Middle, Ballyveiniter Lower and Ballytrasnane, Barony of Fermoy- 30 July 1852 (lot maps).

18.Garrett NAGLE, Esquire, owner, exparte Ellen BRASIER (deceased), continued in the name of Henry Braiser MITCHELL, Esq., petitioner- Boulinigiah, Tourmore, Knockahullata- 22 June 1853 (no maps).

19.James O DONNELL & Mary O DONNELL, his wife, owners, exparte Peter GLEASURE, petitioner- part of the Lands of Upper Downing- 16 July 1851 (no maps).

20.Sybella MOCKLER, owner, exparte Mathias Christopher HENDLEY, petitioner- House and Desmense lands of Rockville, otherwise Licklash, otherwise Ileclash, Barony of Fermoy- 16 July 1851 (lot map).

21.Pierce NAGLE, of Anakissy, in the County of Cork, Esq., owner, and James HAMILTON, Esq. , petitioner- Anakissy, Clenor, Naglesborough, Cahirduggan, Shanballymore, Mount Nagle, Cloughbouly, Nagles Mountains, Dundannion or Webbville, and Ballintemple- 27 June 1851. (no maps).

22.Francis Edward HOLMES, a minor, Owner, Mary O KEEFFE, petitioner- Shirana, Imphrick, Lisballhay, Ballyhoura, Loughleigh, & Bowling Green Street (Cork)- 12 May 1853 (lot maps and illustrations).

23.Edward STANNARD, Esq., owner, exparte Sarah Maria FITZSIMONS, wife of Walter FITZSIMONS, and Bernard MANLEY, petitioners- Lands of Ballindeague & Mountain, Grange called the rock of Bridgetown, and Lisnagoureen- 10 March 1853 (lot maps).

24.George CROFTS, of Streamhill, in the County of Cork, Esq., owner, exparte Rev. George GWYNNE & others, petitioners- Streamhill and Knocknamodera, and Lands of Ballynamodihinigh- 20 March 1851 (lot maps).

25.Frederick William DeMOLEYNS, of Kerry, Esq., owner, exparte Catherine MORIARTY, petitioner- Ballyshane, otherwise Johnstown West, Parish of Dunmahon, Barony of Fermoy- 17 December 1852 (no maps).

26.Mary ROBERTS, widow, & others, owners, exparte Michael MANSFIELD, petitioner- part of the Lands of Bridgetown, Barony of Fermoy- 21 August 1855 (lot map).

27.Sir James COTTER, Bart. Owner, exparte Catherine COTTER, spinster, petitioner- Knockbrack, otherwise Ballygriffen, and Ballymagooly otherwise Knockbwee, and part of the Lands of Rockforest called Woodlands- 4 June 1850 (no maps).

28.Edward SAYERS, Owner, exparte George HEWSON, petitioner- Croghnacree- 4 November 1859 (no maps).

29.Frederick Marcus CALLAGHAN, Esq., & others, owners, exparte Richard CALLAGHAN Esq., continued in the name of Alexander Foley M’NEMARA, Esq., petitioner- Convamore, Gortroche and Ballyhooly- 8 July 1853 (lot maps).

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

VOLUME 7

1. John LINDSAY, Owner, exparte Joseph Woodley LINDSAY, petitioner- Ballintemple, called Lindville, Janeville and Maryville; also part lands of Glankittane with Dwelling Houses situate on the Wellington Road, in the North Liberties of the city of Cork- 6 May 1856- (no maps).

2. Estates of the Right Honourable Richard Earl of Shannon, Owner and petitioner [note-includes Cork & Waterford Estates, but only the Cork concerns are copied here]- Shannon Park, Kinalea or Cork Harbor Estate includes; Lands of Doonavanig, Ballinvarig, Aghnacarriga, Knockmanagh, East Farrenbrien and Minane Bog, West Farrenbrien and Farraneen; Charleville Estate includes Shandrum (part of); Bandon Estate includes Cloughmacsimon (part of), Clogheenavodig (part of), [houses on] Shannon Street, Bandon, also Boyle Street, Warner’s Lane and Fox Street; Monarone (part of), Knockanreagh, Currivridy East (part of), Currivridy West; and Youghal property includes four Dwelling Houses and premises- 13 July 1852- (lot maps).

3. Elystan Eyre EVANS, a minor, by the Right Honourable Edward Lord CROFTON, and the Honourable Sophia EVANS, his Guardians, Owners and petitioners, in the matter of the Estate of AnnaEVANS and Elizabeth EVANS, Owners; John CHARLEWOOD, Andrew Roger SAVAGE, and Henry Frederick EVANS, Trustees of the settlement of John Freke EVANS, and Julia BruceMONCRIEFFE, his wife, petitioners- [note-includes Limerick and Cork Estates, only Cork concerns are copied here], Gourtnagoul, barony of Orrery & Kilmore; Kilbolane (part of), called Wood Quarter; Mounteen, barony of Orrery & Kilmore; Kyle, barony of Orrery & Kilmore; Upper Kyle and Lower Kyle; Dooney, otherwise Dunah- 9 December 1858- (no maps).

4. John D’Arcy EVANS, Esq., Owner, exparte Julius DELMEGE and John FERGUSON, petitioners- Coolnagour and Gurtysheedy; Derrylahan, and Coom; Mallabracka; Ballynabearna and Carrogar- 17 April 1857- (lot maps).

5. Christopher Vaughan FOSS, Owner, exparte Thomas EXHAM, petitioner- [note-Estate includes lands in Tipperary not copied here] Certain undivided parts or shares of the Lands of Springrove, barony of Duhallow; Lands of Ryefield, barony of Barrymore; Premises situate on Lapp’s Island and Morrison’s Island, parish of Holy Trinity, city of Cork; Lands of Grange, barony of Cork; Premises situate Denroche’s Cross, city of Cork- 17 June 1858- (no maps).

6. Margaret JOHN, Robert McClure JOHN, Henry BOWLES, Rev. John Wright HOPKINS, Roger Green DAVIS and Spottiswoode BOWLES, Owners, exparte James Edward BUTLER and JohnPERROTT, Petitioners- [Estate includes lands in Cork & Waterford, only Cork lands copied here], Castlerichard, otherwise Inchyneragh, barony of Imokilly; Dwelling Houses and premises situate in town of Youghal- 29 October 1858- (lot maps).

7. Edward Deane FREEMAN, Esq., Owner, exparte Anne DAVIES, petitioner- Lands of Ballycusheen, Parish of Ballyclough; Lands of Cremane, Parish of Clonmeen; Lands of Meenskehy, Parish Cullen & Dromtariff; Part East & West Clonbannin, Parish Cullen & Dromtariff; Part lands Derrinagree and Islandahill, otherwise Islandobilly, Parish Cullen & Dromtariff; Lands of Garryduff, Parish of Ballyclough; Lands of Knocknagree, Parish of Nohavildaly; Lands of Knockane, Parish of Clonfert- 4 June 1850- (lot maps).

8. Right Honourable ROBERT EARL OF KINGSTON, of Mitchelstown Castle, in the Co. of Cork, Owner, exparte Eliza HOOPS and Sylvester YOUNG, petitioners- Bellerough (part of); Lyrebarry (part of); Gortnaskehy (part of); and Macrony Upper (part of)- 2 December 1851- (lot maps).

9. John HYDE, Esq., of Castle Hyde, Owner and petitioner- [Estate includes Lands in Limerick and Tipperary not copied here], First Division of the Estates of John HYDE, Esq., comprising the Manor, Town and Lands of Castle Hyde, including, Ballyvodoona; Strawhill; Carrigabrick and Rathealy; Ballyarthur; Kilquain; Connyberry; Clone and premises in Castletownroche; Castle Hyde; Coolmucky; Coolroe; Knockananig; Ashfield; Condon’s Farm; Sheepwalk; Bawngarriff; North & South Acres; Cullinagh; Labocally; Farranlahessery East; Farranlahessery West; and Premises in the town of Youghal- 5 December 1851- (lot maps).

10. Right Honourable VALENTINE, EARL OF KENMARE, and Edmond JERNINGHAM, Esq., Trustees of the Estate of Sir George GOOLD, Baronet and Henry Valentine GOOLD, Esq., and Others, Owners, exparte Jane ATKINSON, petitioner- [Estate includes Lands in Tipperary and Cork, only Cork copied here], Old Court otherwise Shanacourt (three miles from Cork City) and Ringroe, or Ballyorban; Rochestown (part of)- 12 March 1852- (lot maps).

11. Frederick William DeMOLEYNS and the Rev. William DeMOLEYNS, owners, exparte Francis Spring WALKER, petitioner- [Estate also includes Lands in Kerry not copied here], Lands of Johnstown, otherwise Ballyshane, Parish of Dunmahon- 8 July 1851- (lot maps).

12. Edward Deane FREEMAN, Esq., Owner, exparte Anne DAVIES, petitioner- [Estate includes Lands in Cork and Limerick, only Cork copied here], Castlecor, Parish of Kilbrin; East Ballyhest and Dromin, Parish of Kilbrin; Knockballymartin, Parish & Barony of Cork; Curragh and Ardtemple, Parish & Barony of Cork; Glounakiel, Parish of Clonfert; Ballymacpierce, Parish of Kilbrin- 26 November 1852- (lot maps).

13. Daniel James MOYNAHAN, of Freemount in Co. of Kerry, Owner, exparte William FAGAN, of Feltrim in Barony of Cork, petitioner- [Estate includes Lands in Kerry not copied here], Lands of Cullen; in Cullen, Lands called two Gneeves- 21 November 1851- (no maps).

14. Henry PARKER, John Robert Theophilus Hastings PARKER, Henry Francis Hastings PARKER, John Godfrey TEED, Edmond WHITE, Thomas CONNELL, and Peter Hennis GREEN, Owners, exparte Roger Green DAVIS, petitioner- [Estate includes Lots situate in Cork and Waterford, only Cork copied here], Mills of Gill Abbey, consisting of Lands of Ballygaggin; North and South Cloghane; Lands of Modelligo and part of Coolebane, situated in the Barony of Condons and Clangibbon; Lands of Currebehy; Lands of Glenballycollinane, in the Barony of Kinnatalloon; part Lands of Carrigeen and Glanatore; Lands of Shanakiel; Lands of Kilcronart; Lands of Garrantaggart & Agherne, in the Barony of Kinnatalloon; Lands of Knocknastacane and Knockacorrocouse, in the Barony of Duhallow; Lands of Brookpard(k?), in the Parish of Kilcorney, in the Barony of West Muskerry; Lands of Lisgoold, otherwise Ballyvonteen, in the Parish of Lisgoold, Barony of Barrymore; Lands of Kilmagner, in the Barony of Imokilly; Liberties in the town of Youghal; Greenpark, near Youghal; Ballyling, in the Parish of Ightermurragh; Lands of Kilcoran, in the parish of Youghal; and the Lands of Summerfield, near the town of Youghal- 11 July 1851- (no maps).

15. Christopher Hume LAWDER, Assignee of Rev. Gustavus WARNER, Owner, exparte Catherine KEMMIS, petitioner- [Estate includes Lands in Cork and city of Dublin, only Cork copied here], Lands situate within 5 miles of Charleville; Killabragher, in the Barony of Orrery and Kilmore- 20 May 1853- (lot map).

16. Robert Power RONAYNE, Esq., Owner, Andrew CARMICHAEL and John MacDONNELL, Esq., Surviving Executors of Richard CARMICHAEL, Esq., deceased, petitioners- [Estate includes Lands in Cork and Waterford, only Cork copied here], Part Lands and premises known as Pike Park, situate in the town and liberties of Youghal; Town Fields, liberties of Youghal- 20 June 1851- (no maps).

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

VOLUME 8

1. Jeremiah O CALLAGHAN, of Lahern in the County of Cork, Owner, exparte Robert Francis M’LEOD, petitioner- Lands of Kilpadder, with its subdenominations of North & South Carricleena, and East & West Glashaboy, in the Barony of Duhallow- 10 January 1852- (lot maps).

2. John Robert ATKINS, Owner and petitioner- Lands of Coolmahane, in the Barony of Duhallow- 19 April 1855- (no maps).

3. Letitia PURCELL, of the city of Manchester England, widow, Owner, exparte Thomas SADLIER, petitioner- Lands of Upper Gurtinard, in the Parish of Clonmeen, in the Barony of Duhallow- 20 February 1852- (no map).

4. Christopher Hume LAWDER, provisional Assignee of Richard LEAHY, an insolvent debtor, deceased, Owner, exparte Charles John DALY, petitioner, continued in the names of Robert ORR and Michael MURPHY, official Assignees of Richard LEAHY, an insolvent debtor, deceased, Owner, exparte Charles John DALY, petitioner- Lands of Ballybane called Coolnahilla, in the Barony of Duhallow- 25 March 1858- (lot map).

5. Michael MURPHY and Charles Henry JAMES, official Assignees of Richard LEAHY, an insolvent, deceased, Owners, exparte Charles John DALY, petitioner- Lands of Keelnahulla, otherwise Keele, in the Barony of Duhallow- 23 June 1859- (no map).

6. George THOMAS, Trustee and Executor of John CONNELL, deceased, and Christopher CONNELL, Heir-at-law of said John CONNELL, Owner, exparte Mary Minton CONNELL, Executrix of Mary Athins CONNELL, and John Minton CONNELL, her husband, petitioners- Lands of Upper Scarteen and Lower Scarteen, in the Union of Kanturk, in the Barony of Duhallow- 30 May 1857- (no maps).

7. Denis LANE and William Rogers JOHNSON, Owners, exparte Thomas JOHNSON and Joseph Rogers WISEMAN, petitioners- Lands of Bannagh, otherwise Banny, in the Barony of Duhallow- 9 February 1858- (no maps).

8. Thomas TANGNEY. Assignee of Henry WRIXON, Owner, exparte Nicholas WRIXON, petitioner- Lands of Ballinbrittig, otherwise Cecilstown, called the Demesne Lands; also that part called Ballinamona, in the Barony of Duhallow- 6 March 1856- (lot maps).

9. Bartholomew GIBBINGS and Others, Owners and petitioners- Lands of Ballynoe and Garrane, otherwise Gurrane, otherwise Marybrook, in the Barony of Duhallow- 24 May 1860- (no maps).

10. Charles WRIGHT, Esq., Devisee in trust of Michael CREAGH, deceased, Owner, the Reverend Morgan O BRIEN and the Reverend Edmond MURPHY, petitioners- Annakissy North; Cooldurragha and parts of Clenor; Rossankneau, called Bettyville; Pulleen; Six Gneeves of Garrantifineen, Two Gneeves of Garrantifineen called Blue Pool, Eight Gneeves of Garranaglossy called Springgrove; Grenane; and Ballyandrew- 25 July 1853- (lot maps).

11. Denis O CALLAGHAN and Moses MULCHINOGH, Owners, exparte Averina GUBBINS and Letitia GUBBINS, petitioners- Part Lands of Gortnagross, called Righiberg, in the Barony of Duhallow- 4 May 1852- (no maps).

12. Richard NAGLE, Assignee of Charles Joseph CURTIN, Esq., M.D., Owner, exparte William CREAGH, petitioner by Original & Supplemental petition and James BARRY, Assignee of WilliamCURTIN, Esq., Owner, Philip William CREAGH, petitioner- Lands of Clonmeen, called Coolroemore, about ten miles from Mallow, in the Barony of Duhallow- 26 September 1857- (no maps).

13. Thaddeus CALLAGHAN, Owner and petitioner, in the Matter of Thomas Francis O CONNELL, John O CONNELL, Ellen Maria O CONNELL, William Peter O CONNELL, and Charles O CONNELL, Owners and petitioners- Lands of Lower Knockduff, situate in the Manor of Newmarket, Parish of Clonfert, in the Barony of Duhallow- 3 November 1851- (no map).

14. Thomas James NASH, Christopher Crofts NASH, or Thomas NASH, Owners, exparte The Reverend William CROFTS and Christopher CROFTS, petitioners- Lands of Rockfield, called Upper Ballyheen and Lower Ballyheen, or Rockfield Demesne, in the Barony of Duhallow- 24 June 1858- (no maps).

15. John Maunsell PEARD, Esq., Owner, Marion PEARD, petitioner- Lands of Glanatore, in the Barony of Kinnatalloon- 27 April 1858- (no map).

16. William SEALY, Esq., Owner & petitioner- Island or Lands of Spike Island, harbour of Cork, Barony of Barrymore- 10 February 1859- (no map).

17. John SEALY and John YOUNG, owners, exparte Winspear TOYE, deceased, continued in the name of Jane HUNGERFORD, as his Administratrix, petitioner- Lands of Ahadalane, Barony of Ibane & Barryroe- 29 April 1858- (lot map).

18. Hamilton WHITE, and Elizabeth WHITE, Richard WHITE, Elizabeth Warren Lucy WHITE, Anna Maria WHITE, Francis James WHITE, Rosa Elinor WHITE, Edward John WHITE, Frances Maria WHITE, Walter WHITE, Alicia Olivia WHITE, and Charles Henry WHITE, and of Elizabeth Davis GILLMAN and Thomas GILLMAN, Owners, exparte The Reverend John St. GeorgeWILLIAMS and Lemuel Ebenezer WARREN, petitioners- Deryginah, about 2 miles from Bantry; Raheen; Cahernacrin; Drumbroe; Droumadoneen; Skahanagh; Shandrum; Inchiclough and its subdenominations Shanacknock and Laheran; Stores in Bantry; Lower Gurteen; Reenavannah (in Whiddy Island) and Hog Island; Kealkill (part of); North Glounaglough &c.; South Glounaglough; Oughterrybeg- 3 December 1852- (lot maps).

19. Thomas BARTER, Owner, exparte Richard Nevill PARKER, petitioner- Lands and premises of Kilnahone, Lisnegree and Lisnemona, called the Demesne Lands or Lower Kilnahone- 5 March 1852- (no maps).

20. Elizabeth TRESILLIAN, Widow, Stewart TRESILLIAN, William D. TRESILLIAN and Elizabeth TRESILLIAN, Owners, the said Elizabeth TRESILLIAN, widow, petitioner- Several Well Circumstanced Dwelling Houses and Premises in the town of Bandon- 19 October 1855- (no maps).

21. James HANNING, Owner and petitioner- Lands called ‘Evergreen’ in the Parish of St. Nicholas, city of Cork; Friar’s Walk in the city of Cork; Maypole Rd., city of Cork; Ingreaga and Scarriffe, situate in the Barony of Imokilly; Glenager, in the Barony of Imokilly; Lands of Kilcrone and Ballyfin, in the Barony of Imokilly- 1 May 1858- (lot maps).

22. **This entry concerns Estate Lands in County Tyrone belonging to Sir Thomas STAPLES, not copied here.

23. Margaret JOHN, Robert M’Clure JOHN, Henry BOWLES, Rev. John Wright HOPKINS, Roger Green DAVIS, and Spottiswoode BOWLES, Owners, exparte James Edward BUTLER and JohnPERROTT, petitioners- Dwelling House and premises South Abbey Street and in the North Main Street, in the Town of Youghal- 8 January 1859- (no maps).

24. Robert Uniacke Penrose FITZGERALD, Esq. Owner & petitioner- Reishe, in the Barony of Barrymore; Woodstock, in the Manor of Barryscourt, in the Barony of Barrymore; Drummin, otherwise Dromin, in the Barony of Orrery & Kilmore; Ballynagrath, otherwise Ballynagragh, in the Barony of Fermoy; Coolmanagh, in the Barony of Duhallow; Sleveen, otherwise Slaveens, in the Barony of Imokilly; Ballycourlea, otherwise Ballincorlea, subdenomination of Oxmarsh, in the Barony of Imokilly- 28 May 1852- (lot maps).

25. Richard Thomas GOOLD, a minor, Owner, Catherine Anne GOOLD and Lucinda GOOLD, petitioners- The Lands of Curryglass, otherwise Curraghglasse, in the Barony of Orrery & Kilmore- 7 May 1852- (no maps).

26. John BENNETTand Freeman CROFTS, Owners and petitioners- Lands formerly called Nielands Fields and Callanan’s Fields and the Flax Field, but now known as Lands and Premises in and adjoining the town of Charleville, in the Barony of Orrery & Kilmore, in the Parish of Rathgoggin- 8 February 1855- (lot maps). *See also #30.

27. Christopher Hume LAWDER (Assignee of George Freeman GLOVER, deceased), Robert Mitchell GLOVER, Susan GLOVER, widow, and George GLOVER, Owner and petitioners- The one divided fourth part of the Lands of Curraghclonbroe, in the Barony of Orrery & Kilmore- 2 December 1856- (lot map).

28. John Nicholas LYSAGHT, Esq., and Rebecca LYSAGHT, spinster, Owners, exparte James LYSAGHT, Esq., petitioner- Lands of Derryorgan and Tullacondra, in the Barony of Orrery & Kilmore- 26 October 1852- (no maps).

29. Robert BULLEN, Owner, exparte Thomas Henry ALLEN, petitioner- Lands of Coolbane, Faha and Inchibull; Lands of Ballinamuddagh, otherwise Rockspring, being Part of the Lands of Liscarrol, situate in the Barony of Orrery & Kilmore- 19 October 1855- (no maps).

30. John BENNETT and Freeman CROFTS, Esqs., Owners and petitioners- Castlewrixon, (part of) called Ballinrahy; Castlewrixon Middle; Castlewrixon (part of) called Ballinling; Ballyroe and Moneline; Part town of Charleville; Ballyhesta or Wills Grove; Corroghclonbroe East and West, in the Parish of Shandrum- 15 November 1851- (lot maps) *See also #26.

31. Estate of the Right Honourable STEPHEN, EARL OF MOUNTCASHELL, William CALLAGHAN, Assignee of William CROFTS, a Bankrupt, Samuel WILLIAMS, Carden Terry WILLIAMS, John WILLIAMS, Stawell WEBB, Humphrey Evans WILLIAMS, Catherine GILLESPIE, otherwise WILLIAMS, and William GILLESPIE, Sarah WILLIAMS, Henry GILLESPIE, MarthaMcAULIFFE, Catherine MASSY, Sarah MASSY, Jane MASSY, Christopher A. BULL, Arthur W. J. BULL, Mary W. BULL, Jane W.E. BULL, Marianne C. BULL, and Joshua Frederick BULL, Owners, exparte Edward Wight SEYMOUR, petitioner- Towns and Lands of Ballybeg, in the Barony of Orrery & Kilmore; Ballynafanna and Glandolane OR Clondulane, in the Barony of Condons and Clangibbons; Lands of Lagg and Garryard [note-Garryard is crossed out]- 9 May 1856- (lot maps).

32. George Thomas DeMASSY, Esq., a minor, Owner, exparte Anne O DELL, petitioner- Lands of Knockough, otherwise Knockcough, in the Barony of Orrery & Kilmore- 17 November 1857- (no maps).

33. Monsell WORRALL, Assignee of the Estate and Effects of Edward GLOVER, an Insolvent, and John Power GLOVER, Owners, exparte Anna DeBURGH, petitioner- one divided Moiety of the town and Lands of Curraghclonbroe, in the Barony of Orrey & Kilmore- 17 June 1858- (no maps).

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

VOLUME 9

1. The Right Hon. ROBERT EARL OF KINGSTON, Thomas Joseph EYRE, and James SADLIER ,owners and petitioners- Fee Simple Estates in the Barony of Coshlea and County of Limerick, and in the Barony of Condons & Clangibbon, Barony of Fermoy and Barony of Duhallow, in the County of Cork [note-only Cork Estate Lands copied here], 55 Lots include Labbamalogga West, Labbamalogga Middle, Labbamalogga East, Derrylahan, Tooreagh and Gortnamina, Shraharla, Knockanevin (part of), Baunanooneeny, Curraghgorm (part of), Derrynanool (part of), Marshallstown (part of), Glenahulla (part of), Cloghleafin (part of), Commons, Ballydeloughey (part of), Kilclooney (part of), Graigue, Boleynanoultagh, Ballyvisteen, Gortacurrig, Quit-rent Mountain, Springvale, Glasvaunta, Kilmaculla, Old Castletown (part of), Cullenagh, Ballyshurdane, Kildorrary [sic] (part of), Scart (part of), Glenatlucky, Killikane, Skeheen Upper, Curraghavoe (part of), Glenduff, Clonmeen &c.- 10 February 1855, revised to 5 June 1855- (lot maps)

2. Thomas Darcy EVANS, owner, exparte Julius DELMEGE and John FERGUSON, petitioners- [note: Estate also includes Lands in Limerick, only Cork copied here], Lands of Knockaclarig, in the Parish of Kilmeen, in the Barony of Duhallow- 10 July 1851- (lot maps).

3. Charles Denroche PURCELL, Esq., deceased, continued in the name of Richard PURCELL [note: the name Richard crossed out, hard to read but looks like the name William handwritten next to it], owner, exparte Jane TARRANT, petitioner- [note: Estate includes Lands in Limerick & Cork, only Cork copied here], Lands of Kilcoleman and Garryvasogue; Lands of Meenacloghrane and Knocknashannagh; Lands of Cookeerane and Shanaknock; Part of Lathsey; Part Lands of Knocknegrenane East and West, and Duargins or Castlelands; Lands of Lislehane and Vicars, alias Lisaniskea; all in the Parishes of Dromtarriff, Cullen, Millstreet and Nohival, in the Barony of Duhallow; Lands of Gurtnacrehy and Mullaghroe East alias Mullaghroe South; Lands of Mullaghroe West alias Mullaghroe North; Two Gneeves (part of); Knockduff (part of which was formerly called Knockeenleagh); Glountanemore, Derrigh; Egloun and Glountanebeg, situate in the Parish of Cullen in the Barony of Duhallow; Lands of Dromrastel, otherwise Woodpark, in the Parish of Ballyclogh, in the Barony of Duhallow; Lands of Gortnaconroe, in the Parish of Clonfert, in the Barony of Duhallow; Lands of Esk, North & South, in the Parish of Kilshannick; Lands of Maulikillikeen, in the Parish of Kilmeen, in the Barony of Duhallow; Lands of Droaminan, otherwise Garranjames, in the Parish of Imogeely, in the Barony of Imokilly; Lands of Gurteenacluna, in the Parish of Clonmeen, in the Barony of Duhallow; Lands of Kilroe, in the Parish of Ballyclogh, in the Barony of Duhallow; Lands of Garrygurt, otherwise Garrygue, part of Kilballyvorihy, in the Parish of Knocktemple, in the Barony of Duhallow; Lands of Meadstown, otherwise Ballynameagh, in the Parish of Ferahy [sic], in the Barony of Fermoy; Lands of Lackaroe, known as Lear and Hurley’s Lot, in the Parish of Liscarrol in the Barony of Orrery & Kilmore; Lands of Scarteen, Carhue and Gurtatrea, in the Parish of Inniscarra and Donoughmore, in the Barony of East Muskerry; Lands of Callas, in the Parish of Inniscarra, in the Barony of East Muskerry; Lands of Lisnashandrum, in the Parish of Inniscarra, in the Barony of East Muskerry- 25 November 1851- (lot maps).

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

VOLUME 10

1. James Milner BARRY, owner, exparte The Rev. George EAGLE, and Another, continued in the name of Mary Milner BARRY, petitioner- About 1800 acres of Lands in Skehanagh, otherwise Skehanagh North and Skehanagh South; and Cooloiquane, otherwise Coolquane, less than a mile from Watergrass Hill, in the Barony of Barrymore- 20 April 1855- (no maps).

2. Eliza SWAYNE and Charlotte Ellen SWAYNE, spinsters, Louisa RODEROE, otherwise SWAYNE, wife of William RODEROE, Caroline BARTOLETTO, otherwise SWAYNE, wife of JohnBARTOLETTO, Georgina MOY, otherwise SWAYNE, wife of Francisco MOY, and of Anne MONKMAN, otherwise SWAYNE, wife of William MONKMAN, Owners, Thomas MannonAHEARNE, petitioner- Part of the Lands of Skehannagh and Coolquane, 182 acres, 2 roods and 9 perches, in the Barony of Barrymore- 11 June 1858- (lot maps).

3. Sir Edward HOARE, Baronet, and Edward Wallis HOARE, owner, exparte Thomas GARDE, petitioner- Lackenroe, situate in the Barony of Barrymore; Lands of Ardcahane, Kealaraheen, Gortenure, Moneyreagh and Drumdeege, situate in the West Division of the Barony of East Carbery; Lands of Carrigrohane, situate in the Barony of Cork- 17 November 1854- (lot maps).

4. James Milner BARRY, and Another, owners, exparte Eliza Milner BARRY, petitioner- Lands of Skahanagh, Formerly called and known as Upper, Middle & Lower Skahanagh, now called Skahanagh North and Skahanagh South, situate in the Parish of Ballinaultig, in the Barony of Barrymore- 26 July 1852- (lot maps).

5. Garrett Standish BARRY, owner, exparte Samuel Philip TOWNSEND, petitioner- Unsold portions of Leamlara, consisting of the subdenominations of Carrigane, Glengarriffmore, Glengarriffbeg, Doneen, Ballyvatta, Ballinaglough, Moanbawn, Ballynabranagh West and South Condonstown, in the Barony of Barrymore- 1 July 1852- (no maps).

6. George Carlton CLERY, Esq., owner and petitioner- Divided Third part of the Lands of Shanakiel and Kilrossane, being part of the Lands of Kilrossane and Ballingohig, in the Barony of Barrymore- 4 March 1858- (no maps).

7. Justin McCARTY and Robert McCARTY, both of Carrignavar, in the county of Cork, Esqs. owners, exparte the Rev. Thomas TOWNSEND, petitioner- Part of the fee-simple Estate known as the Carrignavar Estate and part of the Lands of Ballyhesty, situate in the Baronies of Barrymore and Cork- 16 March 1852- (lot maps).

8. Grice Richard SMYTH, of Castlewidenham, in the County of Cork, owner, exparte The Rev. Grice Blakeny SMYTH, petitioner- Lands called West Ardnageehy, in the Barony of Barrymore- 11 February 1852- (no map).

9. Luke Joseph SHEA, Esq., owner and petitioner- Part of the Lands of Carrigane, situate in the Manor of Barryscourt, in the Barony of Barrymore- 16 March 1854- (no map).

10. Elizabeth POWER, Devisee of Richard POWER, late of Carrigmore, in the county of Cork, deceased, owner, exparte William HANAN, petitioner- One Divided Moiety of the Lands of Condonstown, together with one Undivided Moiety of about 94 acres of mountain lands and part of Knockavuddig Mountain, containing 29 A. 0R 12P, in the Barony of Barrymore- 20 May 1853- (lot maps).

11. Grice Richard SMYTH, of Castlewidenham, in the county of Cork, Esq., owner, exparte the Rev. George Blakeny SMYTH, petitioner- Lands called East Ardnageehy and Bishops island, in the Barony of Barrymore- 31 January 1853- (lot maps).

12. Matthew O HEA, Esq., owner and petitioner- One Divided third part Estate of Ballyard, Ballyeightera otherwise Ballyeechtrach, and part of Knockavidig, being subdenominations of the Lands of East Clonmult, situate in the Barony of Barrymore- 16 January 1852- (no maps).

13. Pierce POWER, owner, Laurence CORBAN, petitioner- The Bog and Mountain commonly called the Common, and called the Barrymore Bog, now known as Ballyogaha East, Portavarrig and Knocknaskeagh, in the Barony of Barrymore- 12 June 1855- (no map).

14. Cornelius O BRIEN, Esq., owner, exparte Sir Richard O CONOR, Esq., petitioner- Town and Lands of Coylenacurra otherwise Kylenacurra otherwise Kilcor, in the Parish of Castlelyons, in the Barony of Barrymore- 15 December 1854- (illustration and lot maps).

15. The Reverend Thomas WALKER, surviving Trustee named in the last will and testament of Thomas WALKER, deceased, and of Caroline WALKER, widow, Thomas Henry WALKER, Wallis AdamsWALKER, Samuel WALKER, Henry George WALKER, and of John Southcote WALKER, continued in the name of Thomas Henry WALKER as heir-at-law of said Samuel WALKER, deceased, owners and petitioners- The Waterpark Estate, inclusive of Waterpark, Ballydorgan, Glenagurteen and Rosnabrone; Kilcoran South; Knockaskahane, in the Barony of Condons & Clangibbons; Townlands of Pelleck and Ballynella; Lands , called the Wood of Ballyvolane, all in the Barony of Barrymore; Stores and premises situate in the city of Cork known as ‘Rocksavage Stores’; Private Houses and premises situate in the town of Fermoy; portions of the premises known for many years as ‘Fermoy Brewery’- 8 December 1859- (lot maps).

16. George Bevan LUKEY, of Clondillane, in the county of Cork, Esq., owner and petitioner- Estates in that part of Kilbarry called Inchinore, and part of the Lands of Clondillane, situate near the town of Fermoy, in the Barony of Condons & Clangibbons- 16 March 1852- (no maps).

17. George Bevan LUKEY, Esq., owner and petitioner, continued in the name of C.H. LAWDER as his Assignee- Part of the townland of Kilbarry called Inchinore, or, the Golden Inches- 1 November 1855- (no map).

18. George Bevan LUKEY, of Clondillane, in the county of Cork, Esq., owner and petitioner- Estates in that part of Kilbarry called Inchinore, and part of the Lands of Clondillane, situate near the town of Fermoy, in the Barony of Condons & Clangibbons- 12 February 1852- (no maps).

19. John William BURMESTER, Formerly John LAW, and James SADLIER, owners and petitioners, continued in the names of John William BURMESTER, William CORY, and James AndrewDURHAM, owners and petitioners- Lands of Graigue and Cullenagh, situate in the Barony of Condons & Clangibbons- 26 June 1860- (no maps).

20. Richard William PEARD, Esq., owner and petitioner- Lands of Kilmagner, situate in the Barony of Condons & Clongibbons [sic]- 1 March 1860- (lot maps).

21. Andrew UVEDALE, Ralph UVEDALE and Samuel UVEDALE, or some or one of them, continued in the names of Samuel UVEDALE and Charles COGHLAN, as Trustees of the Children of the said Andrew UVEDALE, deceased, and further continued in the names of John DANCKERT and William O CONNELL, Trustees named in the will of Ralph UVEDALE, deceased, owners and petitioners- Lands of Ballylacken otherwise Greenhill, in the Barony of Condons & Clangibbons- 21 June 1859- (lot maps).

22. Edward Keily CAREY, Esquire, owner and petitioner- Lands of Ballyshane otherwise Ballyshanbeg otherwise Johnstown, with a right of Commonage over the Commons adjoining the same; also Lands of Ballyaddock, situate in the Barony of Condons & Clangibbons- 21 June 1859- (no maps).

23. Thomas TANGNEY, Assignee of John William ANDERSON, a Bankrupt, owner, exparte Henry WHITE, petitioner- Grangebawn otherwise West Grange, and part of the Lands of Carrignagreeny called East Grange, in the Barony of Condons & Clangibbons- 1 August 1851- (lot maps).

24. Right Hon. ROBERT EARL OF KINGSTON, Thomas Joseph EYRE and James SADLIER, owners and petitioners- Lands of Quit-rent Mountain; Skeheen Upper; Glenduff (part of); Curraghavoe (part of), in the Barony of Condons & Clangibbons- 19 February 1856- (lot maps).

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

VOLUME 11

1. Henry MANNIX and William MANNIX, Esquires, owners and petitioners- Lands of Kilmagner, and the Leasehold Lands of parts of Ballinglanna, called Maryborough, Glentoun, Killindolin, and North & South Caherduggan, in the Parish of Fermoy; also House & premises in Shandon Church Street and The Old Market Place, in the City of Cork- 12 June 1855- (lot maps).

2. John O DONOGHUE and David O DONOGHUE, Executors of Margaret O DONOGHUE, deceased, and of John Edward PIGOT and Thomas PAYE, or some or one of them, owners, exparte The Right Honourable David Richard PIGOT, petitioner- The Distillery, Flour Mills & Premises, situate at Middleton, formerly known as Hackett’s Distillery- 10 May 1859- (no map).

3. Samuel Edmond FALKINER, Esq., owner and petitioner- Lands of Kilcully, near city of Cork, in the Barony of Cork- 23 February 1855- (lot map).

4. Bartholomew James HACKETT, William HACKETT, Maria HACKETT, Dominick HACKETT and Richard SULLIVAN, owners, exparte John CARROLL, Barcroft Haughton CARROLL, and William CARROLL, Executors of Sarah CARROLL, deceased, petitioners- Distillery, Flour Mills and Premises situate at Middleton, known as Hackett’s Distillery- 9 August 1850- (illustration & lot map).

5. Charles SUGRUE, Trustee of the Estate of Richard D. GARDE, the Younger, and John D. GARDE, owners, exparte Richard Davis GARDE, petitioner- Lands of Garrymore, situate in the Barony of Imokilly- 5 November 1852- (lot maps).

NOTE: The above information was copied from FHL film number 258799, containing Volumes 10 & 11. Volume 11 has only five Cork Estates, the rest of Volume 11 is relevant to County Sligo, not copied here.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

VOLUME 12

1. Martha Deane COX and Katherine Anne COX, owners and petitioners, and in the matter of the Estate of Sackville Hamilton COX, owner and petitioner- to be sold in 61 lots, includes the Lordship of the Manor of Dunmanway, together with the valuable fair and market tolls of Dunmanway and Ballycurteen, as well as The Important Fair and Market Town of Dunmanway, and also the Lands of Dunmanway North and South; Tonafora; Underhill; Brookpark; Mileenannig; Demesne; Dereens; Coorycullane; Darkwood; Cloontiquirk; Derrynasafagh; Inchanadreen; Shiplough; Inchireagh; Coolsnaghtig; Derrynacaheragh; Kilbarry; Kippagh; part of Lettergorman; part of Kildee and part of Inchafune, situate in the West Division of the Barony of East Carbery- 12 November 1858- (lot maps).

2. Thomas Walter HUNGERFORD, and Jeremiah SULLIVAN, and of Christopher Hume LAWDER, Assignee of Alexander George HUNGERFORD, or some, or one of them, owners, CatherineHUNGERFORD, (continued in the joint names of Edward O REGAN and Catherine O REGAN, his wife) petitioners- Lands of Dereen and North Fearlahanes, called Ballygurteen, situate in the West Division of the Barony of East Carbery- 26 June 1856- (no maps).

3. Henrietta Sarah WHITE and Charlotte Mary Dorman WHITE, continued in the names of Henrietta Sarah ROBERTS and Richard ROBERTS, her Husband, and said Charlotte Mary Dorman WHITE, owners and petitioners- Lands of Cloonkeen otherwise Clounkeen; Cooladerreen otherwise Cooledreen; Tullig North; Tullig South; Milleenahillan; Corran otherwise Carran, all situated in the Barony of East Carbery, West Division- 18 October 1856- (lot maps).

4. Joseph BENNETT, owner and petitioner- Lands of Kilbronan otherwise Kilronan, in the Barony of the West Division of East Carbery; and Northagill otherwise Northaghill in the Barony of the West Division of East Carbery- 22 February 1853- (no maps).

5. Harry JONES, owner, exparte Henry Bruen WESTROPP, petitioner- Droumillihy and Kilbeg, Lands in the Parish of Kilmacabea, in the Barony of East Carbery- 13 June 1854- (no maps).

6. William Morris ALCOCK, owner, exparte Eliza Morris READE, widow, and Executrix of William Morris READE, deceased, petitioners- Lands of Letter Gorman, in the Parish of Drinagh, in the Barony of East Carbery- 19 June 1855- (lot map).

7. John King FORREST, Assignee of A.B. BERNARD, owner and petitioner- Lands of West Raharoon, Middle Raharoon and Garranebeg, in the Barony of the East Division of East Carbery- 22 July 1852- (no maps).

8. Mathias SMITH, an Insolvent, continued in the name of Roger Bernard EVANS, his Assignee, owner, exparte Colin B. JAMESON, petitioner- Several valuable farms in the Barony of East Division of East Carbery, within 4 miles of Kinsale, includes Dundanion, Ballinure called Parkanplumpa; Mahon; Kilgobbin; Ballinaskebeg, and also Dwelling Houses, grounds and premises situated at or near the Blackrock Station of the Cork, Blackrock & Passage Railway, within 2 miles of Cork city in the Barony of Cork- 7 October 1851- (no maps).

9. Michael MURPHY, Assignee of George CORNWALL, a Bankrupt, owner, exparte Catherine Morris BALDWIN, petitioner- Tullyland, situate in the Barony of East Carbery, 2 miles south east of Bandon- 15 December 1852- (lot map).

10. Thomas HUNGERFORDEsq., owner and petitioner- Estate of Inchafune, with its subdenominations of Keelnareliga, Guttertown, the Commons, and part of Monaneurig Bog, situate in the East Division of the Barony of East Carbery, 3 miles east of Dunmanway- 13 October 1859- (lot maps).

11. Mathias SMITH, an Insolvent, continued in the name of Roger Bernard EVANS, his Assignee, owner, exparte Colin B. JAMESON, petitioner- Several valuable farms in the Barony of East Division of East Carbery, within 4 miles of Kinsale, includes Dundanion, Ballinure called Parkanplumpa; Mahon; Kilgobbin; Ballinaskebeg, and also Dwelling Houses, grounds and premises situated at or near the Blackrock Station of the Cork, Blackrock & Passage Railway, within 2 miles of Cork city in the Barony of Cork- 9 August 1851- (lot maps).

12. Sir William JARDINE, Rev. Wm. DUNBAR, John GIBSON, Samuel TOWNSEND, and of John Handcock TOWNSEND, owners, Sir Anthony WELDON, petitioner- Lands of Lisbiallet and Raharoon, in the Barony of East Carbery- 22 April 1858- (lot maps).

13. John CANNIFFE, Assignee of William Banfield BERNARD, an Insolvent, owner, Thomas KINGSTON, petitioner- Lands of Knockamortealig otherwise Cripple Hill, in the Barony of East Carbery; Town and Lands of Glounacarney in the Barony of East Carbery, West Division; Lands of Knockegarrane and Lands of East Gully, situate in the Barony of Kinalmeaky- 24 March 1858- (lot maps).

14. George Fletcher SWETTENHAM, Esq., owner and petitioner- Part Lands of Paddock, Shandrum, Toughbawn and Curraghnaloughra, in the Barony of East Carbery; Part Lands of Knockatullery now known as part of Garraunawarrig Lower; Scarteen Lower near Newmarket and Dwelling House and out offices in Newmarket, in the Barony of Duhallow- 26 June 1860- (lot maps).

15. Robert ORR and Michael MURPHY, official Assignees, and John REID, and John DAWSON, Trade Assignees of William WELPLY, a Bankrupt, owners, exparte William M’NEMARA and Belinda Maria RONAN, spinster, petitioners- Rental of Rent Charge of £62 9s. 6d. issuing out of the Lands of Kilbronane otherwise Kilronan, situate in the Barony of East Carbery- 16 July 1860- (no maps).

16. Thomas Walker Eyre EVANS, owner exparte John D’Arcy EVANS, continued in the name of Richard TOPHAM, petitioner- Lands of Mallabracka, situate in the Barony of East Carbery, West Division- 4 November 1859- (lot map).

17. Right Honorable RICHARD, EARL OF BANTRY, owner and petitioner- Part of the Bantry Estate, sold in 39 Lots, in the Baronies of East Carbery, Bere & Bantry, includes part of Gurranure and Kilvera; Sonnagh; Cloncurbane (part of) and Glaun; Baltenbrack, Tome and Beagha; Grillagh, Knockacullen and Carran; Kinnebeg; Gurtroe and Bucherus; Mallow, Anaharleck and Aghakery; Cahir, Teeny and Coonagh; Knockduffe (part of); Garnish Island; Western Forts and Batteries on Whiddy Island; Reenavanna (part of Whiddy Island) & Hogg Island, and Stores in Bantry; Knockamuck; Main Street in Bantry; Slip; Inchiclough and its subdenominations; Derrycreaghy, Ardaturishbeg and part of Ardaturishmore; part of Cummer and Cumholo; Droumgarriff (part of); Reenmeen East; Lower Gurteen; Mochanaclee; Droumaneshig; Breenymore; Breenybeg; Droumlecarroo; Cappanaboul; Derrifadda and Lackabane; Cahirmonteen and part of Kealkill; Carriganass; Bollhusky, part called Millcove Ballard; Bollhusky called Felane West, Felane East, Felane Middle and Shanavallyleigh; Rossmacowan West, part called Curraduff; Rossmacowan West, part called Thornhill; Rossmacowan East and Aghabeg; Reenmeen West- 25 November 1853- (lot maps).

VOLUME 13

1. William AUSTEN, Esq., owner and petitioner, exparte Elizabeth EVANS, otherwise AUSTEN, Richard BUSTEED, Catherine BUSTEED, otherwise EVANS, his wife, and Elizabeth EVANS, petitioner- Estate of Skeaf, situate in East Division of Barony of East Carbery- 19 June 1851- (lot maps).

2. Harry JONES, a minor, owner, exparte Cooper PENROSE, petitioner- The fee simple Estates of Droumbeg, Farrancantry, Garrancore and Tullageehy, also Countees and Milleens, Derreenascrinig East & West, and Cummeen- 2 April 1852- (illustration and lot maps).

3. John CALLANAN, Assignee of James H. ROCHE, an Insolvent, and Henry ROCHE, an infant, owner, exparte Alexander M’CARTHY, petitioner- Lands of Kilfinnin and Gleananrouragh otherwise Roury Glen, situate in the Barony of East Carbery- 15 July 1851- (no maps).

4. Richard DONOVAN, junior, owner and petitioner- Lands of Ballygroman Upper, in the Barony of East Carbery- 15 December 1854- (no maps).

5. Edward GILLMAN, owner, exparte The Rev. John BROWNE, petitioner- Lands of Rockhouse otherwise Inchilusky, in the Barony of the East Division of East Carbery; also the Lands of Cooranig, in the Barony of the West Division of East Carbery; also the Lands of Brownstown, in the Barony of the East Division of East Carbery- 23 June 1851- (lot maps).

6. Martha RANCLAUD, Administratrix of John RANCLAUD, deceased, owner, exparte John HAMILTON, John FRENCH, and William John NORWOOD, petitioners- Dwelling-house, Demesne and other portions of Lands of Kilfinnin, in the Barony of East Carbery- 28 May 1851- (no maps).

7. John TOWNSEND, owner and petitioner- Lands of Milleenagun, in the Barony of East Carbery, West Division- 26 June 1856- (lot map).

8. Cornelius SWINEY, Ellen SWINEY, and others, owners, exparte Mary CURTIS and Henry CURTIS, petitioners- Lands of Ballygroman Upper, in the Barony of East Carbery- 15 December 1854- (no map).

9. James LYSAGHT, Esq., owner, exparte Thomas LYSAGHT, Esq., petitioner- Lands of West Dromdiclogh otherwise Carrigmore, in the West Division of the Barony of East Carbery- 5 July 1853- (illustration and lot map).

10. Alleyn M’CARTHY, owner, exparte John Samuel BEAMISH, petitioner- One Divided Moiety of Lands of Knockane alias Knockanepubbily, in the Barony of East Carbery- 10 June 1853- (no map).

11. William MORRIS, the Younger, owner and petitioner- Estate situate in the Parishes of Ross and Kilfaughabeg, in the Barony of the West Division of East Carbery, including part Lands of Froe, Maulagown otherwise Mount Stafford, Castle Salem otherwise Benduff, Benduff Slate Quarry and Froe Slate Quarry- 3 June 1853- (no maps).

12. Robert TRESILLIAN, owner and petitioner- Lands of South Cahir and part of North Cahir, in Parish of Kinneigh, in the Barony of the West Division of East Carbery- 20 May 1853- (lot maps).

13. William BALDWIN, owner, Alleyn BALDWIN, petitioner- Several desirable Estates situate in the Baronies of Kinalmeaky, West Division of East Carbery and West Muskerry, including Tirelteen East, West and Middle; Coolenagh; Laravooltig; Crossmahon and Lisardahie- 26 October 1855- (lot maps).

14. Right Hon. GEORGE EDWARD, LORD BARON AUDLEY, owner, exparte David William NELIGAN, petitioner- Fee simple Estates and Valuable Mines and Minerals, comprising 26 Townlands situate in the Baronies of East and West Carbery, in the Parishes of Affadown, Kilcoe, and Cape Clear; also of the three Parishes of Kilkateran, Killocanenagh and Kilmanagh, forming the Union of Bantry- 22 June 1852- (lot maps).

15. John BOWEN,Esq., owner and petitioner- 20 Lots include Lands of Kilbeg, Kilbrogan, Roundhill, Garranefeen, Skull, and Ardmanagh; Meenvane, Skeagh and Curriderrigan, Glan otherwise Glaun, and West and Middle Calves; Castle Island, and Carthy’s Isle, situate in the Baronies of East Carbery, Kinalmeaky and West Carbery- 19 October 1854- (lot maps).

16. Robert TRESILLIAN, of Bandon, in the County of Cork, owner, exparte Samuel SULLIVAN, petitioner- Fee simple Estate of Ballyvolane, situate in the Parish of Ballinadee, in the Barony of East Carbery, East Division- 7 January 1851- (no maps).

17. Chambre CORKER, a minor, owner, exparte Thomas Bertrand MATHEWS, petitioner- Lands of Cloughvadouning, Skevanish otherwise Skevanisk, part of Ballymountain called Turner’s Clash otherwise Clashturner, and the Water Course to Old Bleach Green of Innishannon, situate in the Barony of East Division of East Carbery- 11 June 1850- (no maps).

18. John CALLANAN, Assignee of James H. ROCHE, an Insolvent, and Henry ROCHE, an infant, owner, exparte Alexander M’CARTHY, petitioner- Lands of Kilfinnan and Gleananrouragh otherwise Roury Glen, situate in the Barony of East Carbery- 20 December 1851 (no maps).

19. James HAMMOND and Frederick EMERY, owners, Thomasine Eliza KELLER, petitioner- Residue of the Kilmeen Estate, in the Parish of Kilmeen, in the Barony of East Carbery- 10 March 1854- (lot map).

20. Robert WARREN of Castle Warren, in the County of Cork, Esq., owner, exparte Conyngham ELLIS and Henry BAGGS, petitioners, and in same matter Eliza ALLEN, petitioner- Dwelling house and Premises on the Grand Parade, in the Parish of Holy Trinity, City of Cork; Several houses and premises on Barrack Street, numbers 119, 120, 121, 129, 127, 24, 25, 26, 27, 116, 122, 123, 117, 118 and 128, in the Parish of St. Nicholas, City of Cork; Lands of Barnahily known as Castle Warren and Marsh Farm in the Barony of Kerricurrihy; Lands of Barnahily known as North & South Ring; Lands of Ahakery, Annaherlick and Mallow, situate in the West Division of the Barony of East Carbery; Lands of Knockmacoole, Curracrowly and Slinogue, in the Barony of East Carbery- 22 October 1850- (no maps).

21. Right Hon. GEORGE EDWARD, LORD BARON AUDLEY, owner, exparte David William NELIGAN, petitioner- Fee simple Estates and Valuable Mines and Minerals, comprising 26 Townlands situate in the Baronies of East and West Carbery, in the Parishes of Affadown, Kilcoe, and Cape Clear; also of the three Parishes of Kilkateran, Killocanenagh and Kilmanagh, forming the Union of Bantry- 9 November 1852- (lot maps).

22. Robert DELACOUR, Reverend Francis JONES, Rebecca DAVIES, widow, Robert Henry DAVIES, Anna Maria DAVIES, now Anna Maria JOHNSTON, and Charles DAVIES, or some, or one of them, owners, exparte Elizabeth CROSSLEY, widow, petitioner- Fee simple Estate of the late Simon Farthing DAVIES, Esq., situate near the Town of Charleville, in the Barony of Orrery and Kilmore; Part Lands of Ballinadee otherwise Annesville; Lands of Coolyline otherwise Cooline otherwise Farthingville East & West, in the Barony of Orrery and Kilmore, situate near the Town of Bandon- 3 May 1853- (lot maps).

23. Cornelius O CALLAGHAN and Reverend Robert O CALLAGHAN, owners and petitioners- Estate of Clounderreen, Cluggogh and Skeaf, in the Barony of East Carbery; Pallas in the Barony of Ibane and Barryroe; Knockbrowne, Burrane and Kilshinahan in the Barony of East Carbery, in 12 Lots- 18 February 1858- (lot maps).

24. This Estate concerns Lands in Clare and Limerick and is not copied here.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

VOLUME 64

1. Norman UNIAKE, Esq., the Elder, Norman UNIAKE, Esq., the Younger, and Others, owners, exparte the said Norman UNIAKE, Esq., the Elder, and Norman UNIAKE, Esq., the Younger, petitioners- Coolcap; Ballinteosig otherwise Meelin and Inch; Park Mountain and Monavarnoge; Meenoughter and Ballynaheila; Knockgorm and Ballymaccibbott, all about seven miles from Youghal and about the same distance from Castlemartyr, in the Barony of Imokilly- 1 May 1855- (lot maps).

2. William Stanhope TAYLOR, Mark Anthony SAURIN and Frederick DOWDING, Esq., Trustees of the Will of the Most Noble JAMES MARQUIS OF THOMOND, deceased, owners and petitioners- 77 Lots, Lands in the Barony of Imokilly, including Barnabrow; Tullagh (part of); Ballinvoher (part of); Ballymacandrich; Tullaheenmore; Lagfree (part of); Ballytibbot (part of); Ballykennefeak; Glanturkin (part of); Ballinrostigg (part of); Buckstown &c.; Crocane (part of); Hermitage (part of); Knockanemorney; Rostellan Demesne and Castle, (part of); James-Brook; Ellenville; Rathcoursey; Castlemary; Ballydaniel (part of); Gortnaskehy; Monagoul; Ring (part of); Glounawilling (part of); Ballyskibbole; Knockadoon; Capel Island and Ballynafarsid (part of)- 11 December 1857- (lot maps).

3. Norman UNIAKE, Esq., the Elder, Norman UNIAKE, Esq., the Younger, and Others, owners, exparte the said Norman UNIAKE, Esq., the Elder, and Norman UNIAKE, Esq., the Younger, petitioners- in the Baronies of Imokilly and Kinnatalloon, in 13 Lots including Lyre, Ballyanthony, Sandyhill, Rerour North and Rerour South; Monaloo, Lacken, Glenheal, Glenacoghery, Caher & Reanduff; Kilnafurrery, Ballyknockane, Knockanrig and Knockagool; Coolcap; Ballinteosig otherwise Meelin and Inch; Park Mountain and Monavarnoge; Meenoughter and Ballynaheila; Corbally; Sweetfield; Premises in Town of Youghal; Knockgorm and Ballymaccibbott; Ballygrunna and parts of Monabraher and Kilnasudery; Ballynalahagh and part of Monabraher and Mount Uniake Demesne- 31 October 1854- (lot maps).

4. Charles SUGRUE, Trustee of the Estate of Richard D. GARDE, the Younger, and John D. GARDE, owners, exparte Richard Davis GARDE, petitioner- Lands of Garrymore, in the Barony of Imokilly- 21 May 1852- (lot map).

5. Thomas Garde DURDIN, Esq. Owner and petitioner- Lands of Kilderrig, Carrigkilter, Coolvodig otherwise Sunville, Ballybraher West, Snugborough, Ballyronahan, Ballybraher East, Ballinamona, and part of Shanagarry- 19 June 1855- (lot maps).

6. John Webb ROCHE, of Rochemount, in the County of Cork, Esq., owner and petitioner- Lands of Cloughbally otherwise Nagle’s Mountain, about 5 miles from Mallow; Lands of Ballyshevane and Ballintrim, about 3 miles from Scartlea; Lands of Ballyhook otherwise Rochemount, close to the village of Whitegate, in the Baronies of Fermoy and Imokelly [sic]- 17 April 1856- (lot maps).

 

  1.  Christine Kinealy: The Great Irish Famine Documents, #7. Response of the Landlords, Cork Multi-Text Project in History, University College Cork.
  2.  Report of the House of Commons debate of Tuesday July 11, Cork Examiner; 17 July 1848.
  3. Ibid.
  4. Ibid.
  5.  Rentals of Encumbered Irish Estates, pre 1860, FHLC film number 0258796, Vol. 6.

Encumbered Estate of Robert Kingston

http://corkgen.org/publicgenealogy/cork/potpourri/corkancestors.com/Corkencumberedestates.htm – accessed August 24, 2013, excerpted:

Overview

From LDS Family History Library film number 258795, Volumes 3 & 4; film number 258796, Volumes 5 & 6; film number 258797, Volumes 7 & 8, County Cork, transcribed and in order as they appear on the microfilm.

FHL film number 258798 contains Volume 9 for County Cork, and also contains the sales of Estates from Clare, Dublin, Kerry, Kilkenny and Limerick.

FHL film number 258799 contains Volume 10 & 11, but V.11 contains only a few Cork Estates, most of this Volume concerns Estates in Sligo.

On FHL film number 258800 are Volumes 12 & 13, with the final Estate in V. 13 concerning lands in Clare and Limerick and not copied here.

Finally, FHL film number 258839 consists of Volume 64, and this Volume has only six Estates recorded. Only the Cork Estates from any of these films are contained in this transcription, in order as they appear on the film.

Surname & location spellings as per original record on film. Where illustrations and lot maps appear in the Estate sale record, this information has also been noted.

State Acts – Anita Sheahan Coraluzzi

The Encumbered Estates Acts of 1848 and 1849 allowed for the sale of Irish estates which had been mortgaged and whose owners found themselves bankrupt. The owners could no longer meet the financial demands made by their creditors so the estates, or portions of the estates, were sold off to pay their obligations. The famine left many landlords with difficulties because so many of their tenants could not pay their rents, indeed, many lands were left barren of tenants at all by either death or emigration. With no income the landlords had little choice but to sell. However, the sale of land was inhibited by unwieldy legal procedures involving lengthy deed and title searches until the first Encumbered Estates legislation of 1848, then a more comprehensive Act being passed in 1849. These records are also known as the Landed Estates Court records, and between 1849 and 1857 this Court oversaw the sale of more than 3000 Irish estates. – The British Government hoped that “a new breed of entrepreneur would invest in and capitalize agricultural production” by facilitating the sale of these estates. And it was assumed that this “new breed” of investors would come from Britain. 1 However, during discussions of the bill in the House of Commons Sir J. Graham stated “Every encouragement ought to be given to the subdivision of land… He was most anxious to re-unite to the soil of Ireland the Roman Catholic capital of that country, which he thought would be one of the greatest securities for its tranquility. He believed that the Irish Roman Catholics through their industry, together with their long exclusion from rights as to land, had accumulated capital, and that they were not unwilling to invest it in the land. Unfortunately the large estates held by Protestants were for the most part heavily incumbered, and incumbrances prevented the nominal holders from doing their duty as landlords.” 2 Mr. S. Crawford, supporting the bill, put forward: “The cause of Ireland’s distress was want of employment and wages, which want was greatly aggravated by the embarrassed state of landlord and tenant … it was impossible to remedy the evils of charges upon land unless by improving the laws by which that land was held. He therefore hoped the House would pass this measure.” 3 But it is the opinion of Mr. Sadler during this debate that most concerns us as genealogists, as what he protested to being unacceptable are the very documents we have to look through now. He “objected to the mode prescribed for giving notice of intended sales of incumbered estates in Ireland, for they were limited to advertisements in papers and gazettes little read, or to bills put upon the doors of churches, whereas in no instance had the judges of the land ever deemed such notices valid, unless they had been served upon the parties, or other equally efficacious steps had been taken to insure a knowledge of the contemplated sale of land on the part of the person interested …” 4

The Encumbered Estates documents themselves are in the form of advertisements. Property could be sold as one lot or many lots depending on the acreage and debt of the estate. The typical first page of the advertisement of a sale is shown in the following example:

“IN THE COURT OF THE COMMISSIONERS FOR SALE OF INCUMBERED ESTATES IN IRELAND

In the Matter of the Estate of – Richard Ashe, of Ashgrove in the County of Cork, And Alicia his wife, and James Scott Molloy, Assignee of said Richard Ashe, Owners, Ex-Parte Thomas Barry and Ellen Barry, Petitioners – RENTAL Of THE LANDS OF CURRAGHUE, OTHERWISE CORRAGHEMORE, CARRIGAFOOKA WITH ITS SUBDENOMINATIONS OF EAST DROMONY, WEST DROMONY, INCHIBRICANE AND COOLDORIHY – Situate IN THE BARONIES OF FERMOY AND WEST MUSKERRY And COUNTY OF CORK – WHICH WILL BE SOLD BY AUCTION AS STATED IN THE ANNEXED RENTAL AND PARTICULARS BY THE COMMISSIONERS, AT THEIR COURT, NO. 14 HENRIETTA STREET, DUBLIN, ON TUESDAY THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 1850, AT TWELVE O’CLOCK NOON – Pursuant to and absolute Order made in the above Matter bearing date the 13th day of February 1850.”

Usually following the advertisement page is a list of the lands to be auctioned with most lists accompanied by descriptions of the property, detailed maps and conditions of sale. Often you can find an illustration of the main house on the grounds. Many of these documents then contain lists of tenants on each parcel of land and note how much land the tenant rents, the yearly rent due on that land and whether the tenant holds a lease or are tenants at will. The majority of these tenants were cottiers with no claim at all and no legal recourse to being evicted if the rent couldn’t be paid. Their leases were simply stated as “Tenant from year to year; year ending 25th March” (or whatever date the rent came due). – Occasionally there are gems to be found among these records. The following lease information is taken from the sale of the above-mentioned estate of Richard ASHE. It concerns the lands of West Dromony, being auctioned as Lot No. 4. Column headings are in brackets:

‘[No.] 1 [Denominations] West Dromony [Tenant’s Name] Timothy TWOMEY, [Quantity of Land, English Statute Measure] About 94 A 0 R 0 P [Yearly Rent] £105 2s. 0d, [Gale days] 1st May and 1st Nov., [Tenure by which Tenants hold] ‘Lease dated 14th March 1839, for the lives of Patrick TWOMEY, now aged 16 years, and Timothy TWOMEY (dead), sons of lessee, and Matthew TWOMEY eldest son of Jeremiah TWOMEY*, brother of lessee, now aged 18 years, concurrent with the term of 61 1/2 years from 1st November 1838. This lease reserves all mines, minerals and royalties…also to hunt, fowl, fish, course and sport in … this lease also contains a covenant by the tenant that he will not let, underlet or assign any part of said demised premises, and that he would lay out annually on said demised premises 100 barrels of well-burnt running kiln lime.” 5

It is acknowledged that many family genealogists will find little use for these Encumbered Estates records. Many of these recorded sales of property are so close in time to Griffith’s Valuation that they may reveal nothing more about an ancestor than what information can already be ascertained from the valuation records. However, if all other record sources have been examined for the Irish ancestor, these documents hold the possibility of at least placing the family, and possible relations, in an area one, two, three or more years after Griffith’s Valuation, along with the possibility of revealing information in some of the leases. – If the landholder that your Irish ancestor rented from has been discovered in Griffith’s Valuation records, the Encumbered Estates documents can be searched to see if the landlord sold any of his property. If so, it is another bit of information that can be added to that family’s history.

The records of the Encumbered Estates and Landed Estates Courts are available at the National Archives and National Library in Dublin. They have been microfilmed by the LDS.

Robert, Earl of Kingston: vol. 7, film no. 258797; vol. 9, film no. 258798; vol. 10, film no. 258799.

VOLUME 7

8. Right Honourable ROBERT EARL OF KINGSTON, of Mitchelstown Castle, in the Co. of Cork, Owner, ex parte Eliza HOOPS and Sylvester YOUNG, petitioners- Bellerough (part of); Lyrebarry (part of); Gortnaskehy (part of); and Macrony Upper (part of) – 2 December 1851- (lot maps).

VOLUME 9

1. The Right Hon. ROBERT EARL OF KINGSTON, Thomas Joseph EYRE, and James SADLIER ,owners and petitioners. Fee Simple Estates in the Barony of Coshlea and County of Limerick, and in the Barony of Condons & Clangibbon, Barony of Fermoy and Barony of Duhallow, in the County of Cork [note: only Cork Estate Lands copied here], 55 Lots include Labbamalogga West, Labbamalogga Middle, Labbamalogga East, Derrylahan, Tooreagh and Gortnamina, Shraharla, Knockanevin (part of), Baunanooneeny, Curraghgorm (part of), Derrynanool (part of), Marshallstown (part of), Glenahulla (part of), Cloghleafin (part of), Commons, Ballydeloughey (part of), Kilclooney (part of), Graigue, Boleynanoultagh, Ballyvisteen, Gortacurrig, Quit-rent Mountain, Springvale, Glasvaunta, Kilmaculla, Old Castletown (part of), Cullenagh, Ballyshurdane, Kildorrary [sic] (part of), Scart (part of), Glenatlucky, Killikane, Skeheen Upper, Curraghavoe (part of), Glenduff, Clonmeen &c.- 10 February 1855, revised to 5 June 1855 – (lot maps)

VOLUME 10

24. Right Hon. ROBERT EARL OF KINGSTON, Thomas Joseph EYRE and James SADLIER, owners and petitioners- Lands of Quit-rent Mountain; Skeheen Upper; Glenduff (part of); Curraghavoe (part of), in the Barony of Condons & Clangibbons- 19 February 1856 – (lot maps).

  1.  Christine Kinealy: The Great Irish Famine Documents, #7. Response of the Landlords, Cork Multi-Text Project in History, University College Cork.
  2.  Report of the House of Commons debate of Tuesday July 11, Cork Examiner; 17 July 1848.
  3. Ibid.
  4. Ibid.
  5.  Rentals of Encumbered Irish Estates, pre 1860, FHLC film number 0258796, Vol. 6.

Marquis of Londonderry on the State of Ireland – Hansard – 18220207

STATE OF IRELAND.

HC Deb 07 February 1822 vol 6 cc104-49 104

§ The Papers relative to the disturbed state of Ireland having been read,

The Marquis of Londonderryrose, in pursuance of notice, to call the attention of the House to that part of his majesty’s Speech which related to the internal state of Ireland. He trusted the House would think him sincere when he said, that he never had been called upon to perform any duty more painful to him, whether he contemplated it in his public or in his private character. From experience of the manner in which Ireland had conducted herself of late years, it was certainly to have been hoped, either that tranquillity would have been preserved, or if it were disturbed, that it might have been restored without the melancholy contemplation that it was necessary to repress outrage by the strong arm of power. It was a cause of additional distress to him, that it had fallen to his lot to bring forward this subject: it more properly belonged to right hon. friends, who, from their offices, were particularly responsible for the state of Ireland. He could not give a more pregnant proof of the urgency attaching to this business, than to state that he had felt it his duty, not merely at the instance of the administration on this side of the water, but at the express solicitation of the individual now charged with the government of Ireland, not to delay its introduction, until his right hon. friends, the secretary for Ireland, and the secretary for the home department, were able to assist in the deliberations of the House. He therefore threw himself on the indulgence of the House, while he performed a task distressing to himself, and which would come with greater weight and authority from those who were more immediately connected with the interior state of Ireland.—He would now endeavour to state, as shortly as possible, the nature of his propositions, and the 105 grounds upon which he rested them. If he succeeded in conveying to the House, briefly, his sense of what the case demanded, on every principle of public policy and public safety, on every principle of public order, and mercy to the unfortunate and deluded beings engaged in this rebellious insurrection, it would be the more grateful to his feelings; because, nothing could be so painful as to dwell upon so melancholy a subject. He should best execute his purpose by first stating the nature of the measures lie should suggest; in the next place, the period for which he proposed they should continue; and thirdly, he should endeavour to establish the grounds on which those measures appeared to be of exigent necessity to the government of which he was a member. Upon the best view ministers had been able to take of the whole question, and at the immediate instance of the lord lieutenant of Ireland and his advisers, they had determined to propose, that parliament ought to proceed with the least possible delay, to furnish the executive authorities in Ireland with additional powers for the restoration of the public peace. They had, therefore, resolved to recommend to the House the re-enactment of the Insurrection bill, as well as a former law, commonly known by the title of the Habeas Corpus Suspension act, under which persons suspected of being dangerous might be apprehended and secured. Before he proceeded to argue how far the case was of a description to induce parliament to comply with this application, he wished to apprise them of the duration it was intended to give these re-enactments. He anxiously hoped it would not be found necessary to renew either of these bills beyond the 1st of August; more especially that by which the Habeas Corpus act was to be suspended. He was prepared to admit, that of all painful measures this last was the most painful; and nothing but the strongest impression of its absolute necessity could induce him to propose it. He could not, without the utmost reluctance, deny to any class of his majesty’s subjects the enjoyment of that important writ, which had and fitly long been considered one of the best and dearest birth-rights of Englishmen. He believed that the present was the first occasion on which it had ever been proposed to revive the Insurrection act for a time so limited. Whenever parliament, had adopted this precautionary 106 measure, to be applied locally, and on, the statement of an adequate emergency, no shorter period for its duration than three years had yet been fixed. As, however, he trusted to be able to persuade the House to pass it now with the least possible delay, he should be sorry to name any time for its continuance beyond what the undeniable necessity of the case fully warranted. In a subsequent part of the session, it would be open to the House to consider whether a renewal of the bill might or might not be expedient. Disturbances had existed in the bosom of the metropolis, and then it was that the House had formerly, at one sitting, passed, not only the Habeas Corpus Suspension act, but a measure known by the title of the Martial law bill, which in some respects was infinitely more strong than the Insurrection act. The papers just laid upon the table presented nothing short of absolute rebellion, prevailing in a considerable portion of the south and south-west of Ireland. Rebellion was in the field: it was characterized by every mark belonging to Insurrection; resistance to the law, defiance of the constituted authorities, and every component principle of rebellion. The judgment and discretion of his majesty’s lieutenant in Ireland must carry weight in every quarter of the House, and he was most decidedly of opinion that such extraordinary powers could not be too soon communicated. He therefore called for them, both on the responsibility of the government, here and on the responsibility of the noble marquis immediately charged with the administration of the affairs of Ireland. He claimed of the House that it would not consider that these laws were called for merely on the strength of the evidence contained in the papers upon the table. He apprehended that hon. gentlemen had always held it consistent with their duty to place a fair degree of confidence in ministers in cases of public exigency. Even before a secret committee the disclosure of all the particulars known to the cabinet had sometimes not been thought expedient; and the cases were not few in which parliament had taken the exigency on the declaration of the responsible advisers of the Crown. He had already stated that the papers contained such details as proved the clear, undoubted, but melancholy fact, that actual rebellion was at that moment in the field in the south and south-west of Ireland. He could conceive nothing more 107 calculated to encourage the spirit of disaffection, and to appal and dismay the loyal subject, than for parliament to hesitate now in strengthening the hands of government, as it had done in the time of the predecessor of lord Wellesley, when Ireland was exposed to peril, not of a more serious nature than at the present moment. It afforded him considerable satisfaction to be enabled to state, that the existing rebellion in Ireland was not characterised by any of those wild and theoretical principles of government which at this moment might be said to pervade the world [“Hear, hear,” from the Opposition benches]. The spirit in which that remark was received certainly did not show that the measures now before the House were unnecessary. There was a clear distinction between a rebellion of ignorance and of knowledge. Here pressing need and distress were the source of the calamity; and if politics had been involved in the movements of the distractors of the public tranquillity, it was certain that such proceedings could not end in an extension of liberty. But, because political motives were not now attributable to the rebels, was certainly no reason why the rebellion should not be met by the strong arm of the law. If, in the present Insurrection, those symptoms which existed on other occasions were not to be traced—if in this instance men of education did not take part with the disaffected, and thereby accomplish more permanent injury—it did not follow that the consequences were not to be dreaded, and if possible avoided. The rebellion now carried on was not indeed directed against any particular constitution or form of government under which we lived, but it was directed against every principle of government—against every tie by which mankind was united—against the first principles of social order. The object was, by physical power, to overthrow and destroy all the constituted authorities of the country; and it called into aid the most desperate crimes by which our nature could be degraded—murder and assassination. He was happy, nevertheless, to be able to say, that as political feeling was not mixed up with the existing disturbances, so religions animosities had no connexion with them. Let not the House, however, be sure that if it delayed to act with vigour and effect against these infatuated traitors, the rebellion might not acquire both a religious and a political 108 character. Holding as highly as any man the propriety of conciliation in general, he begged to declare that, to connect it with the bills now under consideration, would, in his view, be a course most fatal to the public interest. He earnestly deprecated the mixture of any such matters: this was in no respect the fit opportunity for the right hon. baronet to enter into the consideration of any case of grievance: this was not the time for discussing why Ireland was more susceptible of commotion than Scotland, or any other portion of the empire, or why a better system of legislation might not be pursued with regard to the Catholics. The object now was, to put down all law, and to dispose of all property; for this rebellion went to nothing short of that point: every thing was to be regulated according to the unknown system of some invisible government: by that it was to be decided how gentlemen were to let their lands, or whether they should let them at all. This, in short, was a rebellion of murder and plunder; and if the House supported the motion of the right hon. baronet, it would sow more deeply than ever the seeds of perpetual disturbance. He therefore most solemnly protested against mixing up matters of grievance with the question of the maintenance of the law: it was only in times of tranquillity that the House could legislate with wisdom and effect upon such subjects. He Mt much confidence, that the right hon. baronet would give due weight to these considerations, and assist him in pursuing a course which all who were interested in the welfare of Ireland must, he thought, be disposed to follow—a course which the distinguished individual who had not long since so ably advocated the claims of the Roman Catholics would be anxious to second, and which had been prudently and temperately adopted on a former occasion. When the country was in a state of disturbance and confusion, the year before last, the House had heard no desire from any quarter, that the claims of the Catholics should be taken into consideration; all parties then studiously abstained from their introduction, and it was not until tranquillity had been perfectly restored in this country (Ireland in the interval remaining undisturbed), that the question, in which they were so deeply interested, was brought under the notice of parliament. He trusted that the heads and 109 leaders of the Catholic body in Ireland would not wish their disabilities to be mixed up with this great and paramount object of enforcing the law, and of protecting the lives of the king’s loyal subjects. No course could be more fatal to Ireland or to the expectations of the Roman Catholics, than that which en the former evening the right hon. baronet seemed disposed to recommend. He trusted that the House would look at this question as one which was extremely pain fill to the executive government, on whom the duty of bringing it forward necessarily devolved. He hoped hon. gentlemen would judge, from the course pursued by government for many years towards the sister country, how anxious those at the head of the national affairs were to secure its peace and tranquillity; how desirous they felt that the cloud which at present darkened its prosperity should speedily pass away. It was true, that many pledges had been given to the people of Ireland of the anxious desire entertained by government, that they should enjoy all the blessings of the law and constitution. The very delay which had taken place in bringing this subject under the consideration of parliament was, in itself, a proof of the conciliatory spirit which animated the breast of the executive government. They were most anxious, before they demanded extraordinary powers from parliament, that they should be possessed of a perfect knowledge of the state of Ireland; and they were also desirous of learning what effect was likely to be produced by the application, in the South of Ireland, of certain remedies which had been found effectual in the West. The county of Galway had manifested great symptoms ofinsubordination—a fact which, he believed, an hon. friend opposite, to whose exertions the preservation of the peace in an adjacent county was chiefly to be attributed, could fully substantiate: the county of Galway had been, in fact, most dangerously disturbed, but it was restored to tranquillity by a due exercise of the powers of the law, aided by a large military force. In the same way a special commission was sent into the county of Limerick, and additional troops were also marched there; but the effect was not the same. These measures proved to be almost wholly inefficacious: and therefore it was, that extraordinary powers were now called for. He was quite sure that the noble lord at the head of the 110 government of Ireland, however anxious he must be to administer the law, as it now stood—however desirous he must be, like his predecessor, to make the people of Ireland duly feel and appreciate the benignant sway of the House of Hanover, under which they lived, must at the same time be convinced, that the first duty which he owed to that country was, to cause the law to be respected, and to show that legal enactments were capable of securing both persons and property. He would, therefore, have been trifling with the true principles of moderation and of justice, if he had not come to that House, when the necessity was so evident, for those extraordinary powers which were resorted to on former occasions, as the only remedies against evils similar to those which now existed, in an alarming degree. He was under the painful necessity of stating to the House, that since the receipt of the despatches which had been laid on the table, fresh accounts had been transmitted from the Irish government, which showed that the mischief was considerably aggravated, both in character and degree. Some transactions had occurred, so horrible in themselves, and so painfully distressing to the feelings of those, who, like himself were intimately connected with Ireland, that he could not enter into a detail of the particulars. The practice of attacking houses had increased to an alarming degree, and, in some instances, was accompanied by circumstances of extreme barbarity. In one case, a house in which there were 16 police-men, was surrounded by a body of 2,000 insurgents; who, not being able to effect their object by the use of fire-arms, had recourse to fire, in order to compel the legal force to surrender. In that affray those sixteen individuals who were employed to preserve the peace, were either killed on the spot, or dangerously wounded. The officer who commanded the garrison of Cork stated, that he had seen large bodies of men in the mountains in the neighbourhood of that city; and, though troops were sent into the western district, and even marched into the mountains, they had not been able to drive those deluded people from their fastnesses. He had therefore every reason to believe that, unless the executive government was armed with such powers as the Insurrection act and the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus, act would confer, the present disturbances could not be effectually put down. The 111 insurrection act was peculiarly applicable to the existing evil. All the operations of those misguided men were carried on by night. The visiting of houses, the forcing open dwellings, in more cases to obtain arms, but in many to possess themselves of other property, were effected in the night time. Large parties of insurgents on horseback travelled from one distant part of a county to another by night, for the purpose of more securely effecting their illegal designs. He trusted that the House would not call on him to state all the reasons which had induced the lord lieutenant to wish for the adoption of the Insurrection act. What he had stated was, he thought, quite sufficient for his purpose. In his opinion, the most advantageous view which could be taken of this rebellion was, that it was wholly confined to the ignorant classes of the people—to those who were without property, without personal influence, without education—with those, in short, who were far removed from the higher orders of society. None of the latter were in any degree connected with it; and he was happy to say, that the sincerity of those ardent manifestations of loyal and constitutional feeling which he had recently witnessed in Ireland, was not to be doubted, on account of the disturbances which unhappily prevailed in different districts. The influence of time, the extension of civilization, and the encouragement of education, would render triumphant that conciliatory feeling, which the imprudence of individuals, who endeavoured to push the principle too far, and too suddenly, had shaken, but had not destroyed. It was perfectly compatible with the present state of affairs in Ireland, (extraordinary as it might seem), that that country was now in a better situation than at any former period, although a portion of its population was arrayed against the legal authorities. Those who were in this state of insubordination were put in motion, partly by distress, partly by evil habits, and partly by that system of cabal and faction which was always resorted to for the purpose of effecting particular objects, which nothing but time could remove. Still, lest such disturbances might take the more dangerous tint of a political and religious rebellion, parliament was called on to interpose its authority. The mischief was, at present, confined to the lower orders; but it was not, therefore, to be treated lightly; because, though the crimes of those deluded men, arising from 112 the causes he had enumerated, formed a happy contrast to a rebellion originating in religious or political causes, still if such an insurrection were allowed to rage in Ireland for any considerable period, individuals connected with a better class of the community might engage in those criminal excesses. He hoped, therefore, that he did not request any thing beyond what the necessity of the case required, when he called on the House to enable him to carry these measures into effect with the least possible delay. It was his duty to propose the renewal of the Insurrection act, for a period considerably less than that to which it had been usually extended. When he called on the House to agree to the measures which the state of Ireland rendered necessary with the least possible delay, it would be observed, that he did not demand of them to place those laws out of the reach of their consideration in the present session. They would have an immediate opportunity of judging of their operation in restoring order; and at no distant day, they would hear the sentiments of his right hon. friend the secretary of state for the home department, than whom no man possessed a more extensive knowledge of the probable effect of those measures, as well as the opinion of the chief secretary for Ireland, who had arrived in town that day. But after the representations which had been made to government, from both sides of the water, as to the necessity of adopting efficient and vigorous measures, to check the farther growth of the existing evil, it was not deemed advisable to postpone the introduction of the bills to which he had adverted, until the assistance of those gentlemen could be obtained. The noble marquis concluded with moving. “That leave be given to bring in a bill to suppress Insurrections, and prevent the disturbance of the public peace in Ireland.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1822/feb/07/state-of-ireland#column_107

Capt. Maberly on the Employment of the Poor in Ireland – Hansard 18240504

ADVANCE OF CAPITAL TO IRELAND— EMPLOYMENT OF THE POOR.

HC Deb 04 May 1824 vol 11 cc450-96 450

§ Captain W. L. Maberlysaid:—Sir, in rising to move that the House should take into its consideration the propriety of addressing his majesty for an Advance of Capital to Ireland, I am sensible I am open to the charge of no small degree of presumption. It is not that I have been unaware of the importance of the subject, or have underrated its difficulties, that I have been induced to undertake a task, so arduous in its nature, so complicated in its details, I have approached it with far different feelings, and if I have been rash enough to embark in it at all, it has been solely from the consideration, that in the full conviction I entertained of the benefits that would result from it to Ireland, and in the absence of other members more competent to engage in it than myself, it became an imperative duty in me to press it upon the attention of the House. In discharging this duty, I am anxious to disclaim all motives of political hostility to the right hon. gentlemen opposite; I am actuated solely by a spirit of conciliation and a desire for the improvement of Ireland, and it will be my care, therefore, in going through the detail, into which it will he necessary for me to enter, cautiously to abstain from every topic that might arraign the Administration of that country, and that might wear the appearance of a wish to promote irritation or to impute misconduct.

Sir, to any one who considers Ireland at a distance, and in a superficial manner, it is no small matter of surprise, that governed as she is by the same laws, regulated by the same institutions, subjected to the same legislature as Great Britain, there should still exist between them such striking dissimilarities. If, however, such 451 a consideration should excite astonishment, that astonishment would altogether cease upon a nearer inspection, it would he found that the two countries had the same laws, the same institutions, the same legislature; but that in one of them they were so modified by moral causes, that there existed in it such differences of manners, of habits, and character, as fully to account for all the dissimilarities that distinguished and separated it from the other.

Sir, one of the most prominent of those evils which Ireland has to complain of, is her redundant and excessive population. It is not that it is large in proportion to the extent of territory, but that it is so in proportion to her means of employing it. It has been frequently, though as I think erroneously, asserted, that this evil is owing to the cultivation of the potatoe; I contend, however, that it is not to the use of the potatoe that the redundancy of her population is to be traced, but to the habits and manners of the people, which would equally have existed, had their food been of a lower or higher description. I cannot by any means conceive, that the use of the potatoe has caused the population of Ireland to be more redundant than it would have been, if the food upon which her peasantry are subsisted had been of a higher description. By the redundancy of population an altogether different thing is meant; we mean the ratio which the numbers of the inhabitants of a country bear to the means for their employment; and if in the instance now before us, the poorer classes are destitute of the means of profitable labour, if it is shewn that the numbers are excessive compared with the capital to put them in motion, it is not to the potatoe that the redundancy is to be ascribed, but to the peculiarity of their manners and their customs, which has caused them to multiply in so extraordinary a manner. The extensive use of the potatoe may be the reason that the population of Ireland is large, it may be the explanation of its being seven millions, while if wheat had been used as an article of food it might only have been three; but it is no cause of redundancy; that circumstance is only to be accounted for by the habits and the character of the people.

If, however, the redundancy of the population of Ireland is not to be attributed to the peculiar description of its food, the general adoption of the potatoe by the peasantry has subjected them to two 452 evils of the greatest magnitude. The first, that already being supported on that food which is the cheapest and lowest in its kind, in the event of scarcity, they are deprived of the power of retreating upon a lower quality of subsistence, but are at once reduced to misery and famine. The second, springing partly from the first, without which it would have been considerably weakened in its force is, that in the humid climate of Ireland the potatoe: crop is precarious and frequently fails, subjecting the peasantry, by its failure, to the most dreadful of privations. Sir, any person who examines the history of Ireland will find that famines instead of being rare, have in that country been of frequent occurrence. Even in the short space of time between the present period and the commencement of the century, there have been no less than four, very general in their pressure. In 1801 there was a famine, another again in 1812. Another occurred in 1816 general over nearly the whole of Ireland, and which was protracted even to so long a period as 1819. The last and most calamitous is that of 1822, still fresh in the recollection of the House, and in the memory of every honourable member that sits round me, both from the extent and intensity of its distress. It would be wholly foreign to my purpose to enter into its afflicting details, but if any one is anxious to view more nearly the privations and the misery it occasioned, I would refer him to the report of the London Committee, he will there find a mass of disgusting evidence on the condition of this unhappy people, such as it is scarcely possible for the mind to conceive, infinitely more difficult to believe, that mortality should have been able to endure.

It is to this evil, that of an excessive population, and the distress that is naturally consequent upon it, that I am convinced, is to be mainly attributed the calamitous situation of Ireland. The sufferings of the people, combined and aggravated as they are by political grievances, frequently become too great for endurance, driving a miserable population into lawless acts of outrage and rebellion. In the disturbances, however, of Ireland, when compared with those of other countries, there is this peculiarity, as has been well observed by the hon. member for Inverness, in an admirable speech delivered by him in 1822. In noticing the circumstance, that in Ireland local grievances 453 are followed by a general commotion, he says, “In every country’ local oppression may take place, and local commotion may follow, but the question that naturally suggests itself with respect to Ireland is this, how does it happen, that a local commotion becomes so rapidly a general disturbance?” Sir, this is the striking peculiarity in the case of Ireland, and I agree with him in the solution of it, that the rapid spread of insurrection is mainly to be attributed to the debased and degraded condition of the peasantry of that country. See under what various shapes insurrection breaks out, sometimes it is attributed to oppression, sometimes it is given to tithe, sometimes to high rents, sometimes to the agitation generated by religious differences; but whatever be the immediate causes of discontent, this follows as a matter of course, that it speedily becomes general; the peasantry are debased, they easily become the prey of every artful agitator, the instruments of each designing incendiary, and a single instance of oppression is blown speedily into a flame, that spreads its destructive ravages over the whole surface of the country. The next question, Sir, that suggests itself is this, what remedy is to be applied to this formidable evil? Direct alleviation is impossible, for the subject of population is one altogether exempted from the influence of legislative remedies. Indirect legislation is the only palliative to which we can resort. If we find that population has been rashly encouraged, and that bounties have been offered by the law that have produced a considerable effect, it is competent to us to take away the stimulant and check the influence of the measures that have had such an injurious tendency. I do not wish to do more than lightly touch this portion of the subject, though I cannot suffer myself to pass over causes that have greatly tended to swell the evil I complain of. There are stimulants to population in Ireland which are capable of being removed, the low qualification of voters, and the interest of the Catholic clergy; the former of these is attributable to the pride and ambition of the gentry; the system of small holdings has been supported and multiplied by the land-owners, whose vanity has been gratified, in having ready at their call an army of retainers and dependants. The other stimulant to population, the interest of the Catholic clergy arises from the nature of the pro- 454 vision upon which they depend for their support; paid, not by the state, but by fees from their parishioners, and which chiefly accrue from the celebration of marriage, they have a direct interest to encourage marriages, however improvident they may be, from which their stipend is to arise. It is an unwise policy in any state, when it can avert it, to permit the interest of individuals to be in opposition to their duty, it should rather be the part of every prudent government to divert the private interest of their subjects into the current of the general utility. Upon this account, therefore, I cannot help expressing a hope that some honourable member will be found, who, at a future opportunity, may suggest a remedy for the evil, by a diminution of at least a portion of the stimulants to this redundancy of population.

There is, however, one natural remedy for excessive population, to which governments have frequently resorted, and which is the only one that can be employed without such undue interference in the minute details of private life, as would not be patiently submitted to by the subjects of a free country. There is a method of repressing population, if one may so call it, by increasing the capital of a country, and swelling the fund which furnishes the means of employment. In order to be understood it will be necessary for me to explain this point a little more fully. It will at once be evident, that although the population of a country be increased, if its capital also be increased precisely in the same proportion, the relation of the two remains unchanged, the augmented capital furnishing undiminished employment to an augmented population. If, however, the numbers of a country shall increase, and the capital shall increase also, but the progress of the latter shall be more rapid than that of the former; in such a case, the condition of the people will be improved, wages will be augmented, it will enjoy a greater share of the comforts, conveniences, and luxuries of life, its means in! short of happiness will be essentially and widely enlarged. Such a course is; open to us in the present instance: we may improve the state of Ireland by adding to the amount of its capital; but to the adoption of the plan there is a formidable objection which it is necessary for me to state. And it is simply this, that experience shows us in every state, it is de Monstrated to us by every history, that no 455 country can hope to increase in wealth without the enjoyment of security. We may see many instances where nations that have been cursed with an ungenial climate and an ungrateful soil, have nevertheless accumulated wealth, and attained to great political eminence, while those countries to which Nature has been more bounteous, and has blessed even with the exuberance of her favours, have been doomed to remain barren wildernesses, by reason of their impolitic institutions. We are all of us well aware that such is the case at present with some of the fairest portions of the globe, which the existence of causes such as I have mentioned have condemned to a hopeless and irremediable poverty. Without security there can he no accumulation of riches, without a moral certainty that every one will be enabled to enjoy the fruits of his industry, after he has earned them by patient and protracted labour, there can be no stimulus to activity and exertion, he can have no motive to better his condition, or to pursue the methods which generate and swell the wealth and prosperity of nations.

If, however, this position be correct, and for my own part I deem it to be unanswerable, and if Ireland be at present in the circumstances I have described, how can we hope to better her condition, how increase the capital of a country in which avowedly, there is an absence of security? The objection would be insurmountable if it were not for her peculiar situation, and if no remedies could be proposed, her most ardent friend must abandon her cause in despair. Such a remedy, however, is, I believe, to be discovered, and it will be my object to make out, and I hope satisfactorily to the House, that it is entirely to the want of employment, that is owing the in-security that pervades that unfortunate country. This subject was fully entered into last year, by a committee appointed by the House, to inquire into the employment of the labouring poor in Ireland. I am sorry to trouble the House by going into that evidence at any length nor would I do it, if the motion I am shortly about to make did not altogether rest upon the circumstance I have stated, and which I conceive I am bound to make out, for unless I can demonstrate, that want of employment gives rise to insecurity, and that on the contrary where employment exists, there also security is to be found, I cannot hope to succeed in my endeavours to persuade the House of the necessity of adopting my present proposition.

456 The first evidence I shall produce upon this part of the subject, is that of the right hon. member for Kilkenny (Mr. Dennis Browne), who was examined as a witness upon that occasion. He is asked “Do you think the introduction of the linen manufacture into that county (Mayo), has contributed to its political tranquillity?” The answer is, “We have seldom had any disturbance, we have more manufacture, and more industry, than, as I think, any county in Connaught.” He is then asked, “You have stated that in the county of Mayo the poor are much employed, and that they have been pretty uniformly tranquil; as an Irish gentleman who must be well acquainted with your country, in your opinion is not the want of employment in the whole of Ireland the great cause of the disturbances that have taken place in that country?” To which he answers “Most certainly.” The next evidence I shall adduce is that of the right hon. member for Waterford (sir J. Newport), who is asked “Then are the committee to understand that in the neighbourhood of Waterford, where there has been employment of the people, there tranquillity has prevailed, and in parts of Cork where there is less employment, there disturbances have arisen.” He answers, “Precisely so. There has been no shade of disturbance in Waterford anywhere, and I attribute it to that very point I have mentioned.” He is then asked. “As a general proposition, do you connect disturbance in Ireland with a want of employment?” He answers, “Very considerably.” The next testimony’ I shall cite is that of Mr. Owen, which I think is of the greatest importance, and well worthy the consideration of the House. Mr. Owen was induced to go to Ireland in consequence of the distresses that prevailed there in 1822, resided in that country for a period of eight months, and from his character and intelligence may be presumed to have mixed a great deal with the labouring classes, and to be fully capable of giving an account of their condition. He is asked, “In case tranquillity was restored in the south of Ireland, do you conceive that capital might find its way into that country, if they carry into effect the scheme you have suggested, as being likely to be a profitable one?”—”It is very probable, provided the country was in a state of tranquillity; as far as I could judge by what I saw, it is not likely that Ireland can ever be in tranquillity until occupation be first of all procured for 457 the peasantry, that is the first and most necessary step.” “Then do you consider the want of occupation to be amongst the principal causes, or the principal cause of the disturbances in the south of Ireland?”—”I believe that to be the principal if not the sole cause.” “What are the facts upon which you found that opinion?”—”Wherever the working classes are occupied in such a manner as to produce them tolerable comforts, I have never seen them discontented.” The committee ask whether this is an abstract principle, or applicable to Ireland, he says it is a general principle applicable to all countries, but particularly so to Ireland. He is then asked, in what parts of Ireland he has seen employment of the population produce such effects, and he answers in the north. The next evidence is Mr. Sterne Tighe. He states, that to the want of employment he attributes every thing that now affects and disgraces that country; and in a further part of his evidence he adds, “I have no hesitation in saying, for the last five or six years, we have seen Ireland under the alternative of finding employment for its people, or diminishing its population by the gallows, the sword, or by transportation.” He then cites a case that came within his own knowledge—”In the disturbances that have taken place in your knowledge, have they taken place at a time when employment was most deficient?”—”I have no hesitation in attributing, generally speaking, all the excesses of the population of Ireland to distress. It was my fate to assist upon the bench, to bring to trial and conviction and execution, a gang of persons similar exactly to those in operation in the south of Ireland. I heard when the judge, lord Norbury, was passing sentence upon them, one of them said, ‘we went eight miles, where we heard there was employment given,’ which was the parish where I lived, ‘and if we could have got that, we would not have been here this day,’ and I believe it.” To this I might add that in the neighbourhood of Clonakilty in the County of Cork, and in the barony of Corkaguinny, in the County of Kerry, where regular employment was afforded by the linen manufacture, there tranquillity had prevailed, and no disturbances taken place.

But, Sir, I do not stop here, I intend not only to show that there has existed no disturbance where there has been employment, I intend to go a step further, and prove, that in those cases where disturb- 458 ances actually existed, when employment has been furnished to the people, it has instantly caused them to subside. For this purpose I shall beg leave to cite an extract from the evidence of the right hon. member for Kerry (Mr. M. Fitzgerald). He is asked, “Do you connect the present disturbances in the south of Ireland with the inadequate means of employing the people?”—”In a very great degree. An engineer who was sent to the most disturbed part of the county of Cork, informed me that he very soon pacified them by an extended employment of the people, in making a new line of road, and by inquiries amongst the farmers, and persons most experienced in the actual state of the country. I was convinced that if employment was sufficiently extensive, the turbulent habits of the population would be altogether abandoned.” The next instance which I would beg to quote (though I feel ashamed to occupy so much of the time of the House), is from the evidence of Mr. Furlong. He is asked “Do you think that want of employment is one of the great causes of disturbance in that country?” “I do. I have reason to know there was a vast deal of disturbance upon one particular estate, and a relation of mine has been lately appointed agent on that estate; there are thirty-five thousand acres on it, and it was in rebellion, but from the liberality of the trustees, enabling him to employ the poor there, he assured me that he had not one troublesome man on the estate now, they are all quiet, and anxious to work and be industrious, and they were actually starving when he went down.” “The state of such property before such means were adopted, was one of great insubordination?”—”Great.”Sir, my honourable friend on my left informs me that the property I have just alluded to is the Courtenay estate, on which the present disturbances first had their origin, and from whence they were communicated to other portions of the country. There is one more quotation I should wish to make, taken from a report made to the Irish government, on public works for the employment of the poor, by Mr. Griffith, and which is the more valuable because it breaks out unsuspectingly, and, from the nature of the document in which it is to be found, is altogether exempt from the suspicions which might attach naturally enough to the evidence given before a committee, the direct object of whose inquiry was the condition of the labouring poor: Mr. 459 Griffith says, “The system I have pursued has been, to divide the different kinds of work into a great number of small lots, and to contract for each with the labourers of the adjoining lands. This method has enabled me to prevent oppression, and to do justice to all, and what is of great importance, to introduce improved tools and implements into the country, by intrusting them to the labourers in the first instance, and taking repayment for them by easy instalments. The result has been, that the same labourers working at the same prices, who at first were unable to earn more than four-pence per day, can now with ease earn from ten-pence to one shilling, and the consequence has been, that the disturbed districts of the Spring 1822 have remained perfectly quiet during the present winter, and the poor inhabitants express themselves as happy and contented.” And in a letter addressed to the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Goulburn), he says, “I beg to state to you, for the information of his excellency the lord lieutenant, that the district for four or five miles to the north and south of the new road from Newmarket to Charleville, has hitherto remained perfectly quiet, and I have every reason to believe will continue so during the winter. Notwithstanding the unusual wetness of the weather, the people have continued constantly at work, and considerable progress has been made in forming and fencing the road. In the northern districts between this place and the river Shannon, the inhabitants have also remained quiet, but I have not the same confidence in them, they are miserably poor and nearly naked.” Sir, this gentleman states, that between Newmarket and the Shannon he had no confidence in the inhabitants, and he assigns as his motive of distrust, that they are miserably poor and nearly naked. With respect, however, to the district between Newmarket and Charleville, which he says has remained perfectly tranquil, it is necessary that I should make one more citation from the evidence (and it is the last I shall make) in order that the House may perceive what had been previously the state of this part of the country, and in what manner they ought to appreciate the value of the example I have adduced. Mr. Pierce Mahoney is asked, “Are you acquainted with the district of country between Charleville and Castle Island?”—”I know the district very well, and from Newcastle to Castle Island,”(the same line of 460 country that has been alluded to)”there is not a single gentleman resident.” “How many miles does that comprehend?” “Twenty.” “In the late disturbances, was not that district the principal seat of the disturbance?” he replies, “Certainly, from that district they took their own opportunities, and came down, and destroyed the country. We look upon it that no greater benefit could be performed to that part of the country, than to cut military roads through it in all directions.” Yet, in this spot, the resort of banditti, the haunt of bands of assassins, of men actuated by all that is vicious and depraved, employment does not fail in producing its customary effects, and directly occupation is afforded, tranquility follows in its train. Let me then ask whether we can for a moment doubt the inference to be drawn from this mass of concurrent testimony, when we see a committee appointed by the House composed in great measure of Irish members, well versed in the history and condition of their country, when we see them calling witnesses whom they deem to be best informed upon the state of the people, best acquainted with its character and manners; when we see such witnesses, not merely expressing strongly their opinions (though with me such opinions alone could have been conclusive), but stating facts within their own knowledge and observation, each fact corroborating the opinions they had previously given; when they tell us that in districts where employment was regular, tranquillity was undisturbed, that in portions of the country, surrounded on all sides by insurrection, the inhabitants were orderly and quiet, because they had the means of labour; when they tell us, lastly, that where turbulence and rebellion had put on its worst shape, and raged with the greatest violence, even there employment calmed the irritated passions of the people, and subdued their insurrectionary spirit, can we hesitate a moment what conclusion to adopt? Sir, it is impossible to resist the inference, that insecurity and want of employment are intimately connected, that they act and react upon each other, that they are reciprocally cause and effect, that there is want of employment in Ireland because there is insecurity, and insecurity because there is want of employment.

If then, Sir, it is established that there is insecurity in Ireland, because there is no means of employment, and that there is not the means of regular employment 461 because there is insecurity, if no private individual will embark his capital while the country is in so disturbed a state, and incur the risk that must attach both to his person and his property, is it too much to ask, that the government should interfere, and interpose its relief? If it were not for the fear of too much fatiguing the House, I could state instances in evidence where individuals had been anxious to invest capital in the south of Ireland, but upon the breaking out of the disturbances altered their previous intentions. Under such circumstance, I would ask, is it not a duty of the government to step forward and take that risk upon themselves, which individuals are unwilling to incur, to endeavour, by advancing capital at a low rate of interest, to induce manufacturers to settle in the south of Ireland, and to afford its population the employment, without which it can never attain a state of uninterrupted tranquillity?

Probably the right hon. gentleman opposite to me (Mr. Goulburn) will say, that such a proposition is contrary to all received principles of political economy, will maintain there is no exception to them, and will endeavour to support his argument by a reference to the authority of Dr. Smith. If, however, he should lay down this position, that there is no exception to this general rule, that no circumstances will justify a government in departing from it, I should answer, that to me such a mode of reasoning seems very illogical. Political economy is not an exact science, in which we can invariably trace the same effect up to the same cause. It is essentially a moral science, formed upon generalities, which are themselves constructed from a minute induction of particulars, which we find upon investigation not to be determined altogether accidentally, but, in the majority of cases, to follow some fixed and definite law. Even to the maxim which is the foundation and corner-stone of the science, that every man is the best judge of what conduces to his interest, we may frequently discover exceptions, and I would put it to any man of the least knowledge and experience in the world, whether such instances have not sometimes occurred to him. If, then, the very principle on which the science rests, may sometimes be called into question, how illogical must it be to assert that the consequences that are deduced from it, must be certain, and invariably the same. It would be much the 462 same reasoning, as to say, that the superstructure in any edifice was solid and immoveable, while its base was undermined, and the fabric tottering to its fall. If however, the hon. gentleman should still rest his case upon authority, to the name and authority of Dr. Smith, I would oppose those of Mr. Say, and Mr. Sismondi. The former of these gentlemen, Mr. Say, no slight authority with those who interest themselves in the science, in commenting upon this maxim of Dr. Smith’s, dissents from it, as thus rigidly laid down, and maintains that it is liable to frequent modification. He goes so far as to hazard the assertion, that without such artificial encouragement, France probably would not have possessed her flourishing manufacture of cloth and silk. Mr. Sismondi, in his excellent work Sur la Richesse Commerciale, goes still further, and after remarking the obstinacy with which capital adheres to those branches of industry in which it was first embarked, and the prejudices which frequently exist against directing it into new channels, proposes that the government of France should annually set apart a large sum, 400,000l., to be distributed amongst the different departments, for the purpose of being advanced as circumstances should dictate, to those manufacturers, whose enterprise, though ascertained to be profitably directed, was cramped and retarded from the want of the necessary fund to carry it into effect.

Sir, the committee on the employment of the poor, to which I have so often alluded, and of which the late respected member for Portarlington, Mr. Ricardo, was a most diligent attendant, have recommended in their report the encouragement to Ireland that I have now the honour to propose; they express themselves thus, “your committee are aware, that according to many of the received principles of political science, all artificial encouragements to industry and production are difficult to be defended, and they are likewise disposed to admit the danger of public interference in Ireland, as tending to make the people of that country look to government and to the legislature for relief, rather than to their own industry and their own exertions. But in the present state of part of that country, it may perhaps be questioned whether any increased application of capital is likely to take place, so as to give more active employment to the people, until peace and 463 tranquillity are fully restored. If, as has been suggested, tranquillity can best be secured by encouraging industry among the people, it may perhaps be necessary that the first step towards the attainment of this object, should betaken with the aid of the public, relying afterwards on the operation of natural causes. Your committee would, however, strictly adhere to the principle of aiding local effort only. But wherever works can be undertaken, which on the fullest investigation are considered to be of real utility, and of such magnitude as to exceed the ordinary local resources, and where such security can be offered, as to protect the public from eventual loss; your committee consider, that some assistance may wisely be given by the nation to stimulate private exertions.” They then go on to say, “They cannot, however, conclude without again expressing their opinion, that the employment of the people of Ireland and the improvement of their moral condition, are essentially necessary to the peace and tranquillity of that island, as well as to the general interests of the United Kingdom.”

Here, then, Sir, is not only the opinion of distinguished political economists, in opposition to the authority of Dr. Smith, which will probably be brought against me, but in addition to it, the report of a committee of this House, specially appointed to investigate the subject, and of which the late Mr. Ricardo, whose firm adherence on all occasions to general rules is well known, was an active and diligent member. Well aware of what that gentleman’s opinions were, and of the almost inflexible and undeviating strictness with which he followed out the general principles of the science, I confess I was not a little surprised to hear from my hon. friend, the member for Limerick, that to every sentiment in that report he gave his full and entire acquiescence.

But it may perhaps be said, that admitting all that I have advanced, granting that Ireland is an exception to all general rules, there is no branch of industry in that country in which capital can be profitably embarked, and I may be called upon to point out the particular department of trade that is susceptible of artificial encouragement. If, Sir, such an appeal is made to me, amongst the many that might be cited, I would more peculiarly mention two, the Fisheries and the cultivation of Flax, which appear to me 464 to present the widest field for exertion, and the most favourable opportunities for carrying into successful execution. Situated as the Southern and South-western districts of Ireland are, in the vicinity of almost in exhaustible banks of fish, admirably adapted for curing, and able from her locality to avail herself of the extensive markets to be found in the Mediterranean, and capable of supplying the wants of every catholic country, where the consumption of fish must necessarily be large, yet such is her ignorance, such her want of capital, such her penury, that she has not hitherto profited by the advantages which she so pre-eminently possesses. Nothing can exceed the ignorance of the fishermen, and an interesting instance of it is given by the member for Kerry, who states that he had opportunities of knowing that the fisheries had received improvement from the accidental circumstance of some men from Devonshire and Cornwall being employed as water-guards upon the coast, who found the natives utterly unacquainted with the method of tying the hooks and handling the lines, and with fishing in all its branches. Thus much for the ignorance, and the incapacity of the people, in the state they are at present, of prosecuting this species of industry. For the purpose, however, of illustrating their abject penury, their total want of means in equipping their boats, I shall mention one instance, taken from the report of the London Committee. It there appears, that in the county of Galway, ‘by an advance of 827l. in small sums, no less than two hundred and seventy-six boats, of poor fishermen, were repaired and fitted for the fishery, giving an average of expenditure of 3l. for each boat; and that in the county of Mayo, through the adoption of the same means, two hundred and seventy-nine boats were sent to sea, at an expense of 771l at an average of 2l, 15s. per boat. But what is infinitely more satisfactory to know, is, that the benefit that was conferred, was not given in the shape of gratuitous relief, and that at the time the letter was written, conveying the information contained in the report, of the money that had been advanced upon condition of repayment, all the instalments which had become due had been repaid with fidelity and honour.

The second case I mentioned of a; branch of industry, not now existing in I the south to any degree, but which might 465 be called into action, is that of the cultivation of flax, for which, perhaps, Ireland is better adapted than any other country. Mr. Oldham, an eminent linen merchant, has given in evidence, that three times the quantity actually grown ought to be produced in Ireland, and that she might find an ample demand for the additional quantity, both in the home market and in that of Great Britain. In order to ascertain this point correctly, I have procured returns from Holland and Flanders, of the expense attending the cultivation of flax in both these countries, and I have endeavoured to adopt a similar course with regard to Riga, but owing to peculiar circumstances, the difficulty of estimating the value of slave labour, I have found it impracticable to obtain the information. I have compared the returns I have been able to procure with others from different counties in the south and west of Ireland, and have uniformly found, that the comparison of them shewed a considerable balance in favour of that country. I think, however, it may be made out by inference, that she raises flax more cheaply than any other country, from this simple tact, that al-though the linen manufactory is carried on extensively, and there is a duty, so small, as almost to allow it to be taken to be anon-existent quality, on the importation of the foreign material, the manufacture is nevertheless exclusively supplied with homegrown flax. From this circumstance we may fairly enough infer that the home-grown commodity is cheaper than the foreign; for what is there, I would ask, that should induce the manufacturer to purchase a dear material at home when he can supply himself upon cheaper terms from abroad, and no impediment is presented by the legislature, to the free importation of the commodity he requires. This inference, however, strong as it is in itself, becomes conclusive when another fact is taken into consideration. Ireland has hitherto produced flax at what may be termed a great loss. She has always thrown away the seed, which the Flemish farmer has been in the habit of considering as essential to procure him a profitable crop, and it is only lately, that accidental circumstances have led to the discontinuance of so injurious a practice. If, therefore, formerly she was enabled to compete upon equal terms with the foreign grower, while rejecting so valuable a portion of the produce, it is but fair to conclude, that upon a change of system, and the in- 466 troduction of a better method of culture, Ireland not only could meet the foreigner advantageously, but could secure to herself the entire monopoly of the markets of Great Britain. But, I may be asked how it is that with all these advantages Ireland has not possessed herself of this profitable trade. Ireland is deficient in the necessary skill, and she is weighed down by an abject poverty, that prevents her taking advantage of the capabilities she possesses, and which cramps all her exertions. I have myself seen specimens of flax grown in Ireland, infinitely superior to those produced abroad, but which, from the process they have been subjected to have borne a price far below those which were inferior to them in quality, but which had undergone a better method of preparation. It is not by capital alone, it is by capital combined with skill, that we must hope to ameliorate her situation; and it is only by holding out to them advantages, that we can induce persons of competent skill to go over and rouse those energies, which at present lie dormant, but which require only common intelligence and exertion to be awakened, to spring into life and vigour.

I shall now, Sir, attempt to give a short outline of the details of the method in which I think capital might be advantageously advanced, and in doing so I feel myself under considerable difficulty, both from the importance of this portion of the subject, and from the conviction I am under, that it must be highly tedious and wearisome. What I should propose is this, that a sum not exceeding one million should be placed at the disposal of commissioners, to be distributed and lent out at their discretion, either at a very low rate of interest, or perhaps at none, to individuals who would engage to employ it, the parties giving proper security for its repayment. The reason why I should I propose, that it should be given to individuals rather than that it should be employed in the construction of public works is, that in the one case the employment is permanent, the capital being reproductively expended, while in the other instance the moment the public work is completed, the employment is totally withdrawn. In the case of public works, distress is only suspended, not averted altogether, and it is on this ground that, in my opinion, they are objectionable in Ireland, where a permanent employment of the population is required, a 467 measure which only can be realized by the encouragement of individual enterprise and speculation. There is, however, a considerable difficulty that presents itself, in the necessity of framing a competent system of checks, to obviate misapplication and to secure to the portion of Ireland we are anxious to benefit, the full advantages to be derived from the investment of the capital advanced. Amongst the various species of misapplication to which such an advance might be liable, the following is one that may be reasonably apprehended. The landed gentlemen of Ireland, embarrassed as they are, might be tempted to receive the capital given by the government at a low rate of interest, and to discharge the incumbrances under which they at present labour, thus becoming gainers by the amount of interest they would pay less than they did before, en inconvenience that could only be remedied by the intervention of a complicated system of checks. Not that I object to the plan of paying off mortgages, considered by itself, I should deem it a very great benefit; in the present case, however, it is so mixed up and combined with other circumstances, that the evil of such a measure would infinitely more than counterbalance the good that would result from it. Not to mention the inconvenience that would arise from the connection thus established between the landed gentry and the government, and the political power and influence that would be thus called into action; there is this serious objection, that in pursuing such a plan the state would not receive from its advance near the degree of benefit which it was entitled to obtain. For instance, if the sum advanced was a million at two per cent, when mortgages generally were at six, it is evident that if the landed gentry were to take the money there would be only 40,000l., the difference between the present and former interest they paid, to be expended in the employment of the population. In the manner I propose it should be given, that, in which it is placed at the disposal of illustrious individuals, not merely 40,000l., but the whole million is devoted to the affording occupation to the people. With a view therefore of checking this and other misapplications, I should recommend some such sort of check as the following. First that the individual who had availed himself of the advance, should make a return to the commissioners of the amount of capital he bad actually in- 468 vested, and the manner and place in which it was employed; next that this return should be checked by an inspector, who, in order to prevent collusion, it might perhaps be provided should not be allowed to visit the same district in two following years. We might still further secure ourselves against misapplication by a certificate of the grand jury of the county, or of magistrates at quarter-sessions, vouching for the fact that appearances corresponded with the declaration. In the case of fraud being made out against the party receiving the advance, a penalty might be enforced upon him equivalent to the suppression of the offence.

Sir, I throw this out merely as conveying an idea of the manner in which this object could be accomplished, as it would be my intention to leave this point entirely to the commissioners, who from their local knowledge from proper inquiries upon the subject would be infinitely more capable to establish adequate checks than myself. I should hope, therefore, that in the event of the right honourable gentlemen opposite falling into the measure I have the honour to propose, that the arrangement of this delicate topic would be abandoned, to the discretion of the commissioners appointed, who alone are competent to undertake it.

Before I sit down, there is one point I should wish to mention, and which I omitted in its proper place, from which I think the greatest benefit would be derived in Ireland; I mean the system of charitable loans, and if the present proposition should receive the approbation of his majesty’s ministers, I should hope that a considerable portion of the grant would be devoted to the encouragement of such institutions. Wherever such establishments have been formed, a disposition for order and punctuality has been generated, the poor themselves receive the loan as a benefit; and as the character of the applicant is always taken into consideration, previous to the granting of the loan, it has acted as a powerful stimulus to good conduct. I would here wish to read a letter from a gentleman who has had experience of these institutions, though I will not trouble the House at any length. It is to this effect. “On the whole I am satisfied with the advantages resulting from the loan system, even on this limited scale; wherever it has been successfully established, there will be found a manifest improvement in the manners and condition of the prior. I have 469 known, that individuals who began by borrowing forty or fifty shillings, have at the end of a few months become the depositors of a few shillings in a savings bank. I remember at Ennis, that a respectable looking shop for the sale of boots and shoes was pointed out to me, whose proprietor derived his first stock of materials from the loan fund, and that in Limerick several thriving tradesmen were mentioned to me, whose means were originally drawn from a similar source.” Sir, I received a letter from the south of Ireland but the other day, which states that associations for the purpose I am now alluding to, are forming upon a great scale in that district, but that their means are totally inadequate to the etui that is proposed; the writer of it, after commenting upon the expediency of giving them assistance, goes on to offer his opinion, that if a moderate degree of skill were imparted to the poor, and they were furnished with implements, a comparatavely small sum would be sufficient to afford them employment. The good that is effected through the means of these charitable loans is almost incalculable. In the two instances I have already mentioned, with respect to the fisheries, the money given was advanced upon this system of loans, the whole of which was to be repaid. And it was but the other clay, that it was stated to me by a Catholic clergyman in the county of Clare, that having received a small sum of money from the London Committee, he applied it in the way of loan to the fishermen, and that by means of this assistance a number of boats were fitted out and sent to sea, which were previously unserviceable, and laid rotting upon the beach, their owners, through poverty, being unable to equip them.

I have now, Sir, brought to a conclusion the subject which I have thought it my duty to submit to the consideration of the House. I have endeavoured to point out the evils under which Ireland labours at the present time, and the manner in which, as I conceive, a remedy might be applied to them. I cannot but entertain the most sanguine hopes, that if a system such as I have recommended were adopted it would be crowned with complete success. I am induced to hope that if capital were once embarked, and manufactures established in the south of Ireland, the example would be speedily followed by other capitalists, who would be anxious to participate in the advantages, when they 470 were fully satisfied that their persons and their properties would be unendangered. I am induced to hope that in every instance in which capital was invested, other capital would be attracted to it as a centre, and would continue to flow into Ireland with a steady and a rapid current. I know there is an idea very much entertained by many persons, that the Irish peasantry are incapable of improvement; and if I had not already too long trespassed upon the attention of the House, I should have been inclined to give instances to prove the fallacy of the opinion. I have had instances mentioned to me in which indulgent and humane landlords have not only found them susceptible of improvement, but have witnessed, with exultation, that the feeling once awakened in their breast has been carried far beyond the impulse that first gave it birth. Sir, the case of Scotland is conclusive upon this point, and I refer, gentlemen to a most eloquent speech of the late Mr. Whitbread, in which he quotes a passage from Fletcher, complaining that Scotland was over-run by individuals wholly subsisting upon charity. He says, that in addition to those who were supported at the church doors, there were upwards of two hundred thousand persons begging about the country, maintained by alms, ripe for every crime, a prey to every disease, and he goes so far as to say, that it would be a great national benefit, if they were sold as slaves to the Plantations. I would ask, what is the slate of Scotland now? whether a population equally moral, equally intelligent, equally enlightened, is to be found upon the surface of the globe? I may be told that this change is owing to education, and that it is so in some measure I am not hardy enough to deny, but skill and enterprise, and capital and industry, have also had their share, and have contributed to raise her population to that high point of intelligence and comfort which at present it has attained. And that I am not far wrong in this, I would intreat gentlemen to turn their view upon a portion of that country whose condition we are now discussing, to the north of Ireland, and they will there find the same causes in operation to which I have attributed so beneficial an effect in Scotland. Sir, in the north of Ireland the linen manufacture exists, rendering its population happy, contented, and tranquil, and I cannot better illustrate the effects that have resulted from this manufacture, than in the words of the 471 committee that was appointed to examine into it in 1822, which in recommending that it should be extended to the south of Ireland, assigns this as the motive of its recommendation; “for wherever it has obtained a footing, industry, moral habits, contentment) and tranquillity have followed.” Sir, I have no doubt of it, I am confident that whenever this or any other manufacture shall be established in the south, the same results will be produced, and it is with that view that I shall move, “That this House do resolve itself into a committee of the whole House, for the purpose of considering the propriety of presenting an address to his majesty that he will be graciously pleased to grant an advance of capital, not exceeding the sum of one million, to Ireland, to be employed in the provinces of Minister and Connaught, and to appoint commissioners for the purpose of carrying this object into effect.”

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1824/may/04/advance-of-capital-to-ireland-employment#column_452

Mr. Lockart on Agricultural Distress in 1822 – Hansard – 18220218

Mr. Lockhart,

in presenting a petition from certain owners and occupiers of land in the two parishes of Repton and Gresley, took occasion to observe, that unless some plan were devised for the relief of the agricultural interest, more effectual than that which was supported by the noble marquis, the clergy would shortly be without endowments, the landed proprietors without rentals, the poor without relief, and the sources of every charitable institution would be annihilated. To show the distress which affected the labouring classes at present, it would only be necessary to state one fact. A gaol had been built at Bury, in Suffolk, for the reception of 80 prisoners; but, at present, it was filled by 200 individuals, 60 of whom were labourers. They had been committed for poaching; and it was a fact, that the labourers went out poaching in the open day, for the purpose of being apprehended; as they preferred the support which was afforded to them in gaol to the want and 455 misery they were compelled to encounter at their own dwellings.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1822/feb/18/agricultural-distress#column_454

Hobhouse on Wilmot Horton – Hansard – 18210417

Mr. Hobhouse

said — Mr. Speaker; If, Sir, my friend, the hon. mover, thought it necessary to make an excuse to this House for the details into which he judged it necessary for him to enter, how much the more must I feel an apology requisite for a person who has not his experience in parliament, and who has besides, on this occasion, the disadvantage of following his very able exposition of the great question now before us. I trust, however, that the House will have the goodness to recollect, that there are some members amongst them whose constituents sent them here principally to advocate the cause of parliamentary reform; and who, however unwilling or incompetent they may be, must therefore, upon these occasions, trespass on the attention of the House. Standing as I do in this predicament, I shall venture to enter somewhat at detail into the examination of the momentous subject now under discussion.

In the first place, I would remark upon what has fallen from the hon. gentleman who has just sat down. He has warned us against any decisive experiments with parliament, and has held out to us the example of those unfortunate states, who have lately made an attempt to “emerge from slavery to freedom.” Those were his words, and I own I heard them with surprise, as coming from one of those who are in the habit of eulogizing things as they are. For, supposing that the Italians have found how difficult it is to “emerge from slavery to freedom,” what lesson does their example teach us? Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that 396 we are endeavouring “to emerge from slavery?”—Does he mean that we are in slavery, and therefore should not attempt to be free?—I think not. Sir, we are not in slavery as yet, nor is it from slavery that it is the project of reformers to attempt to emerge, but we know not how soon we may be in slavery if our present system continues; and it is to present such a consummation that we strive to reform this House—it is to retain what freedom we have, as well as to recover what we have lost, that my hon. friend, the member for the county of Durham, has made his proposition on this night.

I would also remark upon another observation of the hon. member for New-castle-under-Lyne. He tells us that public opinion is a sufficient corrective for the abuses of government, and would therefore apply no other remedy to these abuses’—this is a favourite argument with the enemies of Reform. But in the first place, with all my respect for popular opinion, I do not think public opinion is inevitably right, or always does discover the errors or vices of government. Supposing, however, that it was always right, and always applied a future remedy to a past evil, I would ask, whether the scheme upon which a great nation is to be ruled, should be only so contrived as to find a remedy for a disease when and where it may occur? Surely the wiser plan would be, to manage so as to give a tendency towards what is good, rather than to provide for the correction of evil. Surely to allow of that evil when the causes of it may be removed, merely because we think we have a method of counteracting the effects of that evil, is a strange mode of providing for the happiness and well-being of mankind. It is a scheme by which we must encourage a perpetual struggle between the governors and the governed, instead of uniting the whole community in one bond of interest by a system which secures, upon incontrovertible principles, a general tendency towards good government. Public opinion, when it does come, comes often too late—indeed it is often charged by the hon. gentleman opposite with being too late; and we hear of the people having supported wars at the beginning, and calling out against them only when the clamour was of no use. Sir, I own I am surprised at hearing the hon. member on this occasion, as I have been at others on other occasions, assert that we have no right to this or that change in 397 our representative svstem.—As if our system, as it now stands, were the fabric of ages, unchanged, and unchangeable; as if it had always been such as we now see it; and as if immutability were the most certain principle of our constitution. Let us look at this assertion.—Mr. Hume tells us, that the history of our country is a history of perpetual change; and Mr. Fox, in a speech made in this House on the 30th of April 1792, made use of this expression:—that “the greatest innovation that could be introduced into the constitution would be, to come to a vote that there should be no innovation at all.”* If this be true of the history of the country, it is more peculiarly true of the history of parliament.

Wilmot Horton – Hansard – 18190222

Mr. Wilmot

considered this in no view a question of economy, but of positive law: the committee were not called upon to decide at how cheap a rate they could 588 contract to keep their king, but whether, in the proposed amendment, it would not be guilty of the violation of a vested right. The dignity and the responsibility of the situation of custos, convinced him that the duke of York could be contemplated in no other light than as a public officer, and consequently that he ought to be paid by the public. Whether 10,000l. a year was or was not too much, was not the question: the point in difference was, whether the country ought to be relieved in the mode proposed, by requiring parliament to dip its hands into the pocket of the sovereign. Notwithstanding the distresses of the times, he by no means considered the 10,000l. as too much for an officer of such vast importance. If even the remuneration had been greater, he would have readily given his consent to it. The hon. member professed his independence; stated that he belonged to no party, but that he thought it his duty to give his vote in favour of the measure. He was a strenuous friend to economy; but while, on the one hand, he was anxious for the relief of the country, he was on the other equally anxious that there should be no violation of the faith of parliament; and he contended that it would be a most dangerous precedent were the legislature to interfere with admitted private right.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1819/feb/22/windsor-establishment#column_588

The Rideau Settlement

Source: H. J. M. Johnston (1972), British Emigration Policy 1815-1830 “Shovelling out Paupers”, pp. 10-31.

{10} In 1814 the Colonial Office was not infected by the idea that pauper emigration could relieve domestic distress. But the Colonial Secretary did see value in a policy of assisted emigration if it turned people away from the United States. The old Thirteen Colonies were no longer just a foreign state: they were an enemy state. The present war might well not be the last one; it ill suited Britain to contribute to the power of an adversary by exporting population to her. If emigration was an evil, it was a lesser evil when it ran in the direction of the colonies. There was no divergence from the traditional, conservative view of population and emigration. Between 1815 and 1819 the Colonial Office offered assistance to emigrants for reasons related to the colonies but without any consideration of the possible benefits at home. Yet, even though the objectives were limited, a great gap existed between what the Colonial Office intended to accomplish and what it was prepared to do. Scarcely more than one thousand emiggrants received help from the government while tens of thousands left on their own. The Colonial Secretary and his Under-Secretary did not anticipate the size of the post-war spontaneous and unassisted emigration from Northern Ireland. Moreover, they headed an administrative rather than a spending department and they possessed little capacity for bold action. Their emigration measures were not so much mistaken as inadequate.

It would have been difficult for the Colonial Office in 1814 to have justified a scheme of assisted emigration except in strict reference to colonial requirements. The public had not yet been educated to view emigration as a desirable outlet for redundant population. Indeed, the problems of pauperism and over-population had not previously attracted much attention. For over a generation the war in Europe had been the great focus of national concern while internal crises aroused little excitement. In the late stages of the war a market collapse, the disruption of trade with America, interference with Continental trade, bad harvests, and wartime taxes had brought despair to the poor. The Luddite outbreaks of 1811,1812, and 1814 were far more serious {11} than the disturbances of the years after the war, but they were not the cause of the same general alarm.1 Apprehensions about the condi­tion and attitude of the lower classes did not surface until after Napoleon’s final surrender.

Even when the existence of widespread unemployment was recognized and Poor Law and over-population, interest in the emigration remedy did not develop immediately. In 1814 Patrick Colquhoun, social philosopher and philanthropist, pointed to the expanse of uncultivated lands in the colonies and observed: “No nation ever possessed such resources for the beneficial employment of a redundant population as Great Britain at the present moment.”2. But there was not much dis­cussion of this idea before 1817. The most important remedy in the opinions of many pamphleteers was the one that Malthus had advocated: withholding relief from the able-bodied poor. The author of one representative essay recommended that the provisions of the law for disabled paupers in old age or inflicted with an incurable infirmity should be continued and improved, but that after the passage of ten years no relief should be granted to the healthy except by voluntary subscriptions.3 The practice which had arisen in the late eighteenth century of giving relief to the underpaid, as well as the unemployed was blamed for the depression of wages and the demoralization of the labouring class. It was argued that if relief were abolished wages would rise, the poor would become self-reliant, and young couples would not be temptted to have families in the expectation of parish help. The gentry were encouraged to believe that a reduction of the poor rates could be achieved to the advantage of all members of the community.

Sympathy for the poor was not a strong sentiment. Those who wrote about pauperism tended to measure it by the cost to the tax­payer of providing relief rather than by the numbers out of work or without profitable employment or by the numbers homeless or under­fed. They saw the problem first and foremost as one of rising poor rates. Many believed that able-bodied persons could be compelled to contribute to the community. If any relief were found necessary, it should be confined to workhouses; the impoverished should never {12} be given anything more than the minimum needed to keep them healthy. In a few instances pamphleteers advocated physical compul­sion. Indignation towards “boys of sixteen and seventeen who marry one week, and demand relief the next” led to a call for the restoration of the practice of branding hands: “Three or four instances of the use of this emblem would bring a whole parish to its senses.”4

Most pamphleteers advanced remedies of a more positive nature: the employment of the jobless in ‘real and useful public works’; the establishment of a national bank to which all classes should subscribe and from which depositors should receive help when they were ill and on other occasions; the colonization of waste lands within the British Isles; and the creation in each parish of areas of garden allot­ments.5, “Tracts on Saving Banks”, Quarterly Review, Oct. 1816; Egerton Brydges, Arguments in favour of the Practicability of Relieving the Able- Bodied Poor, By Finding Employment for Them (London, 1817); Charles Jerram, Con­siderations on the Impolicy and Pernicious Tendency of the Poor Laws (London, 1818); H. B. Gascoigne, Suggestions for the Employment of the Poor of the Metropolis (London, 1817).]  Robert Owen’s plan for co-operative villages was but one of a variety of proposals to give land to the unemployed. Advocates of these reforms stressed the value of permitting paupers to earn self- respect by providing for themselves. But they did not answer the apprehensions of their contemporaries about the consequences of further population growth. Few people were convinced of the practi­cality of Malthus’s solution: moral restraint. “What!” wrote Robert Gourlay, “lecture a young couple on that day against intemperance during the honeymoon!! Really, Mr. Malthus, there is no wonder you have stirred up indignation.”6

In the early editions of his Essay Malthus had contended that emigration would not solve the problem of over-population in the long run. In the fifth edition published in 1817 his position was considerably modified:

If … a very great stimulus should be given to a country for ten or twelve years together [a reference to the War] and … then comparatively cease … labour will continue flowing into the market with almost un­diminished rapidity, while the means of employing … it have … been contracted. It is precisely under these circumstances that emigration is {13} most useful as a temporary relief; and it is under these circumstances that Great Britain finds herself at present placed. The only real relief in such a case is emigration; and the subject is well worth the attention of the government, both as a matter of humanity and policy.7

In the same year the first papers on government-assisted emigra­tion were placed before the Select Committee of the Commons on the Poor Laws.8 The authors were Robert Torrens, an economist who was later to become one of Gibbon Wakefield’s earliest converts and to play an important role in the colonization history of Australia, and W. G. Hayter, a law student who subsequently followed a political career of minor significance. Both Torrens and Hayter reasoned that, because subsistence could not keep pace with popula­tion, the growth of population would need to be retarded. This could be accomplished by moral restraint, Torrens admitted, but time would be needed to educate the labouring classes. To meet the immediate problem government should adopt an extended system of colonization in Canada, the Cape of Good Hope, and New Holland. Torrens did not consider in any detail the means by which such a programme could be carried out. He merely proposed that able-bodied persons who were accepting relief should be offered grants of land in the colonies on condition that they repay the expense of their passage after their arrival. Hayter, on the other hand, attempted to calculate costs: he estimated that a family of five could be sent to the colonies at an expense no greater than that required to keep them in a workhouse for a year. He went on to anticipate possible objec­tions. The likelihood that emigrants would return home he quite rightly dismissed as slim; the problem that parishes would have in raising money he did not see as insurmountable. On the fundamental question of compulsion his attitude was at once more humane and more realistic than that of Torrens. If necessary, Torrens favoured compulsion; those who refused to emigrate could be denied parish relief. Hayter was opposed: “it would be an act of too arbitrary power” and, in fact, would not be called for because the government would have no difficulty in finding volunteers. This was the point of view {14} that was to prevail amongst serious advocates of government-assisted emigration.

One other feature of Hayter’s plan deserves mention. Like Colquhoun and others who submitted colonization plans to the Colonial Office during the following year, Hayter thought that the most eligible places for settlement were at the Cape.9 Even before the Dutch colony had fallen into British hands, Englishmen stopping there briefly on their way to the east had eulogized its moderate climate, exotic fruits and flowers, and its appearance of prosperity.

It was “the finest colony in the world”, a far happier destination than the frozen shores of Canada. Travellers enjoying an idyllic rest at the mid-point of a long ocean voyage may well have looked at the Cape with less than perfect judgement.10 Very few Englishmen had yet contended with the formidable problems of settlement there. Impres­sions of the colony were idealized and incomplete and unrealistic expectations were held of its potential.

The Report of the 1817 Select Committee on the Poor Laws, the Committee to which Torrens and Hayter submitted their papers, included a passing reference only to the advisability of removing ‘obstacles’ that prevented the movement of labour to the colonies.11 This was a very mild endorsement of the emigration remedy, but it was a marked advance from the attitudes of the past. The Committee saw emigration in a positive light and that was significant. In response to the rising cost of poor relief and to recent Luddite riots, objections to emigration were falling away. By 1819, the Poor Law Committee of that year was speaking not merely of removing “obstacles” but actually of giving “encouragement and facilities”.12

The Colonial Office, however, was inclined against pauper emigration. In May 1820, Under-Secretary Goulburn advised the Treasury that a measure that sent indigent people to Canada might hide the suffering of those people from their countrymen but would serve no other purpose;13 the emigrants would probably find themselves in worse circumstances and the colony would be burdened with their care. Although Henry Goulburn was not an imaginative individual, {15} he possessed qualities that his colleagues prized more highly: he was steady, confident, attentive to detail, and indefatigable. As a strictly departmental man he did not attempt to enlarge the sphere of his own desk. In this he stands in contrast to his successor, R. J. Wilmot Horton. Goulburn saw emigration as an aspect of colonial rather than domestic policy. He was more aware of the problems that pauper emigration would create in the colonies than of the benefits it would produce at home.

On this subject it is not easy to separate the opinions of the Colonial Secretary, Lord Bathurst, from those of his Under-Secretary. By comparing the handwriting on the turned-down corners of in­coming letters and dispatches, Helen Taft Manning has concluded that Goulburn carried a much greater burden of work within the Office.14 That is not to say that Bathurst was an ineffective chief. One well-placed observer in the 1820s expressed the opinion that Bathurst was one of four members of an inner cabinet which ran the government and called upon other ministers only to ratify decisions already made.15 Within the Colonial Office Bathurst devoted a great deal of personal attention to the colonies he considered most im­portant: Gibraltar, Malta, the Ionian Islands, and St. Helena.16 The strategic and political significance of these possessions made them most worthy of his time. Although he reserved final word on all questions of policy, he took a very distant interest in the plantation colonies and the colonies of settlement. With respect to these he relied heavily on the industry and judgement of his Under-Secretary. As a result, Goulbum’s assumptions about British North America or New South Wales tended to become those of the Colonial Office.

If there was one aspect of British North American affairs that Bathurst did not find tedious, it was colonial defence. The war in North America began one week after he became Colonial Secretary and lasted through the first thirty months of his administration. Bathurst understood the precarious position of British commanders in Upper Canada. He knew that the loyalty of the bulk of the popula­tion had never been a certainty; that the government could not {16} depend on “ill disposed and disaffected settlers of American origin”.17 If the colony was to be defensible in another war, the American influence would have to be checked. Shortly after the peace treaty was signed Bathurst ordered Canadian authorities to withhold grants of land from American citizens and to make every effort to prevent them from settling in either of the Canadas.18 The effect of this policy was dramatic. The influx of Americans came to a halt. Undoubtedly the opening up of Indiana and Illinois after the collapse of Tecumseh’s confederacy contributed more than marginally to the s diversion of settlers from Upper Canada. Nevertheless, Robert Gourlay believed that the policy of discouraging American immigrants was the prime cause of the stagnation that established itself in Upper Canada after the war.19

While discouraging Americans Bathurst wished to encourage British emigrants to go to the Canadas. The possibility of giving free passages and grants of land occurred to him as early as 1813. Six months after the American attack on York and one year after Brock’s death at Queenston he suggested to the commander-in-chief in Canada that an infusion of Highland settlers might bolster the militia of Upper Canada. He received an enthusiastic response in the affirma­tive.20 Lieutenant-General Sir Gordon Drummond, the Administrator of Upper Canada, stressed the value of a settlement near Kingston to strengthen the weakest link in the defences of Upper Canada. By cutting off communications between Kingston and Montreal Ameri­cans could isolate and stop all supplies to the British forces in the inland province.21 When they had possessed naval superiority on Lake Ontario in 1813 they had been turned away from this objective only by faulty intelligence. Successive commanders in Upper Canada reached the same conclusion: if the province  was to be defended, a larger settlement at the eastern end of Lake Ontario was imperative.

Lord Bathurst had not made such a precise assessment of the need for a policy of assisted emigration. He had no specific location in {17} mind when he first invited opinions, and when it was decided to carry out the project, he left the placing of the settlement to the local authorities. He acted simply in the belief that immigration to Canada was preferable to immigration to the United States. He expected the old pattern of emigration to reassert itself as soon as peace permitted. If the government did nothing, population that could buttress the British North American colonies would be lost to a rival power. On the other hand if the government intervened, it could achieve a double objective, at once strengthening Canada while diverting potential strength from the United States. Of the two, the latter may well have figured more prominently in Bathurst’s considerations.

The Colonial Secretary would not have initiated any steps if he had not anticipated a large and spontaneous emigration. It is signifi­cant that plans for recruitment were directed mainly to Northern Ireland and Scotland. the regions in which.the spirit of emigration ran the strongest. Robert Peel, the Irish Secretary, shared views in common with those of Bathurst and Goulburn. As he explained to a subordinate, the government did not propose to place a premium on emigration: “we assume that Emigration will take place and we say to those who are about to Emigrate that they shall have a bounty on importation into Canada.”22 Peel found it difficult to choose between Derry and Dublin as the residence for an emigration agent. He realized that most of the agent’s business would be in Ulster and that any attempt to locate him outside that province would only add to the expense of his work. On the other hand, “If we fixed on Derry or Belfast, would it not appear as if we wished to deport the North­erners and were glad to get rid of them?” Peel regretted the departure of Protestant Ulstermen; the country could better afford to be deprived of some of its “Catholic Millions”.23 Yet the enthusiasm for emigration in the Northern Counties could not be ignored. If Ireland’s loss could be turned to Canada’s gain it would be some consolation. Goulburn agreed: a programme of sponsored emigration was justified as a measure beneficial to Canada alone.24

The Colonial Office tried to attract immigrants to Upper Canada without drawing criticism for promoting emigration from Great Britain. In 1815 the desire to converve population was stronger than the fear of pauperism. Shortly after the government’s intention to {18} assist emigrants was advertised in Scottish papers, the ministry was obliged to deny that it wished to excite the Scots with a desire to leave. Francis Horner, the respected member for St. Mawes, raised the matter in the Commons, and characterized the promotion of emigra­tion as a “pernicious” enterprise.25 Goulburn did not challenge this description, but replied that it was government policy not to en­courage but to divert. The government did not wish to see an increase in emigration but only a reduction of it to the British provinces in North America.

The advertised terms of the government’s offer demonstrate the truth of this statement.26 While the offer was generous, it could not have been accepted by a majority of those who would have been interested. Applicants who qualified would receive free passages to Quebec and provisions during,the, voyage. On arrival they would he given 100 acres of land and six months of rations would be supplied at low prices. To qualify for this assistance, applicants would be required to deposit £16 for each male of seventeen and over and two guineas for each married woman. This deposit would be forfeited if a settler abandoned his grant of land to skip over the border into the United States. The government was not going to risk the humiliating possibility of subsidizing emigration to the wrong country. In decid­ing on such a substantial deposit Goulburn and Bathurst ensured that no one could obtain a free passage who could not have afforded to pay the fare himself. Paupers could not take advantage of the offer. Even a tradesman earning £25 a year would find it difficult to raise the £16 or £18 that was demanded. Indeed, Robert Peel was afraid that insistence on a deposit of this size would seriously inhibit recruitment in Ireland.27

Goulburn was well aware that thousands of applications would be withdrawn when the terms of the government’s offer were ex­plained. It must be assumed that he welcomed this result. His department was interested only in the emigrant who could help him­self. This was the emigrant who would go to the United States if no inducements were held out to him and this was the emigrant who would make the best settler in Canada. Because the Colonial Office had {19} no other objective than to turn to Canada’s advantage what was viewed as an unfortunate emigration of valuable British subjects, it made sense to offer assistance on terms that could not be universally accepted.

In the spring of 1815 the Colonial Office planned to send to Canada emigrants from Scotland, 2,000 from Ireland, and a small number from England.28 This was a bold start. With the exception of the founding of Halifax three generations earlier, there were no precedents for officials to follow. The government was assuming responsibility in an area in which its role had traditionally been passive or even negative. In 1815, however, it was relatively easy to take this step. Not only were the lessons of the War of 1812 freshly in mind, but also some of the administrative consequences of that war made it opportune to act.29 The Transport Office would be sending shipping to Quebec to bring back 20,000 of the troops who had been involved in the defence of Canada. Because the transports would otherwise be empty during their westerly crossing of the Atlantic, it would be economical to provide passages for 4,000 settlers. In addition, the reduction of the British naval forces on the North American and West Indies stations left a large store of provisions at Bermuda and Halifax; these provisions could be made available for settlers in Canada. Finally, some British regular troops serving in Canada were being demobilized, and placed on land in the County of Glengarry, on the Rideau River, and at the head of the Bay of Quinte in Upper Canada and on the River St. Francis in Lower Canada. The establishment created to administer these military settlements could be given responsibility for civilian immigrants as well. Such an arrangement would enable Bathurst to pay the expenses of his settlers from the military chest and thus avoid asking Parliament for money.

These considerations made an ambitious project seem feasible. Unfortunately, the favourable moment was too fleeting to grasp. Until the American Senate ratified the Treaty of Ghent, until peace was a certainty in North America, the Colonial Office hesitated to authorize any expenditure.30 As a consequence, an emigration agent {20} for Scotland was not appointed until 6 March. Transports to take settlers from the Clyde and from Irish ports were not requested until 13 March. Although advertisements of the government’s offer ap­peared, perhaps prematurely, in Scottish papers in late February, no notice was given in England or Ireland at this time or in early March. An emigration agent for Ireland had not been named at the end of March. By this date it was too late. On 1 March Napoleon had escaped from Elba and twenty days later he entered Paris. The British nation found itself in a renewed state of war. Troop withdrawal from North America was now a matter of urgent necessity; and transports appropriated for this service could not waste time taking on emigrants in Britain. On 1 April they were ordered to sail to Quebec and Halifax without delay.31 Any expectation that a large number of emigrants could be sent out that year had to be abandoned.

Yet the process of recruiting emigrants had been set in motion and the government could not ignore its obligation to those who had accepted its offer.32 In early May Goulburn ordered John Campbell, the emigration agent for Scotland, not to accept any more applicants. Campbell had already received deposits from over seventy families, many of whom had given up their possessions and houses and had come down to Glasgow to wait. In subsequent weeks many more families arrived in Glasgow from remote areas, having sold all they owned in the belief that they would qualify for free passages. Campbell’s lists continued to grow; while Lord Bathurst cancelled most of the arrangements for a government-sponsored emigration in 1815, he realized that he would have to make good his promises in the case of 100 or 150 families.

About thirty families, probably from the north of England, had been scheduled to embark at Deptford.33 They were the first to sail; most of the transports were fitted out at Deptford and it was possible to embark there with a minimum of delay. The settlers who had congregated at Glasgow were not so fortunate. Not until Napoleon’s Hundred Days had run their course were transports available for them. During the long wait many families exhausted their savings; the government recognized its responsibility by providing a daily {21} allowance of 9d. per man and 6d. per woman.[34 C.O. 42/165, Campbell to Bathurst, 24 May 1815; C.O. 43/52, Goulburn to Transport Office, 20 May 1815.] The most serious loss, however, was irretrievable. The auspicious season for sailing had slipped away; the settlers would be arriving in Canada too late in the year to be able to look after themselves.

One week after Paris fell to the allies transports were anchored in the Clyde. Between 11 July and 3 August all of the settlers embarked. There were 699 of them, far short of the 4,000 that Bathurst had originally intended to send.34 The crossing was slow; not until late September did the fourth and last transport reach Quebec. It was with some dismay that the Canadian authorities greeted the arriving settlers.35 Beyond Quebec lay an arduous journey inland to Upper Canada. Time would not allow the settlers to reach their destinations and to build shelters before winter. Instead, they were taken to Brockville, Fort Wellington, and Cornwall and kept in barracks which had recently been vacated by troops returning to Europe.36 By spring of 1816, when they were at length located in the townships near the Rideau Lakes, they had been fed at government expense for a year. A crop failure that autumn and in each of the next two years compelled the government to continue assistance to some families until 1819.

Lord Bathurst urged Sir Gordon Drummond, the Canadian Governor-in-Chief, to do everything possible to make the settlers comfortable. The letters they sent home, he predicted, would do more to create a preference for Canada over the United States than any encouragement that the government could give.37 If the small number of Scots who had come to Canada in 1815 were well treated, larger numbers of volunteer emigrants would follow them in the future. The history of the Rideau Settlement and of Upper Canada shows that this expectation was not disappointed.38 In this sense, the the experiment was a success. On the other hand, the expense of maintaining settlers for a prolonged period of time taught officials in the Colonial Office to approach the subject of assisted emigration with increased caution in the future.

When Lord Bathurst first advised his Governor-in-Chief in {22}

Home Localities of the Assisted Emigration of 1815.

{23} Canada that the planned emigration would not be carried out fully he referred to the decision as a deferment rather than a cancellation. The possibility that a large body of emigrants would be sent out in remained open.39 In March 1816, however, the House of Commons rejected a motion by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to continue the property tax. This was a special tax which had been imposed in wartime and which the Commons were unwilling to see preserved in peace. As a result, Vansittart lost an important item of revenue and all departments were asked to economize. A tight budget had already forced a reduction of administrative staff; the office of the Secretary of State for War and the Colonies had lost seven clerks, one precis-writer, one interpreter, and an under-secretary.40 There was no chance that such a novel enterprise as a scheme of assisted emigration would survive the budget cuts. In April John Campbell was advised that the plan had been abandoned.41

This decision did not represent a reassessment of objectives. While Bathurst and Goulburn came to believe that the scale of assistance given in 1815 had been too lavish, they still wanted to encourage capable settlers to go to Canada instead of to the United States. In January 1817, for example, Bathurst asked for funds to pay part of the expense of passages and three months rations for a group of settlers from the Isle of Skye, but was refused by the Treasury.42 The concession of assistance to a small number of Scottish and English emigrants in 1815 had raised hopes in all parts of the British Isles. Welshmen, claiming to be as “Loyal and Service­able” as the Scots, asked for equal encouragement to stay within the Empire. The volume of correspondence on emigration that the Colonial Office received, and continued to receive, stretched the capacity of its staff. As long as extreme parsimony ruled the Treasury, little expectation of help could be held out to those who wanted to settle in the North American colonies. Throughout 1816 and 1817 petitioners were told that the government could offer no more than a grant of land in proportion to the means of the settler.43 Because {24} a grant could not be obtained without the payment of substantial fees, the offer was empty.

While the Treasury would not provide settlers with free passages from Britain, it agreed to a modest expenditure to redirect them to Canada from New York. James Buchanan, the British consul at New York, reported that a great number of emigrants were disappointed with the conditions they had encountered in the United States and had applied for grants of land in Canada.44 Many of these emigrants came from Ulster. In Ireland Canada was little known, and then imperfectly, while ties with the United States were of long standing and had recently been publicized by several of the exiles of 1798. If Ulstermen were settled in Canada, this situation might be altered and the stream of Irish emigrants turned away from the United States. Buchanan thought that an attempt should be made to attract to Upper Canada those of the emigrants who were loyal, industrious, and “comparatively wealthy”. Unless some inducement were held out they would not go.

For these reasons and in response to a request from the Colonial Office, the Foreign Office authorized Buchanan to spend up to ten dollars for each British subject who landed at New York and decided to settle in Canada.45 In 1817 Buchanan forwarded over 1,600 emigrants at a cost of scarcely two dollars per head. These people were allotted land in Upper Canada in two newly surveyed townships named Monaghan and Cavan after the counties in Northern Ireland from which many of them had come.46 Their arrival marked the beginnings of Irish settlement in a province which was eventually to acquire a pronounced Orange character. The established residents were not entirely happy with this development. Nevertheless, Buchanan carried on his work. By the end of 1820 he had sent about 7,000 persons to Upper Canada “without spending that much in shilling”.47 This was a significant contribution to a population which had numbered only 100,000 in 1815. {25}

The value of Buchanan’s efforts was diminished as soon as the ports of British North America assumed a larger role in the trans-atlantic-emigrants trade, and that happened within a very short period of time. In 1817, in response to the demands of Northern Irish shipping interests, Parliament altered the passenger regulations to permit vessels sailing to British North America to carry one passenger for every 1½ tons while vessels sailing to the United States were held to the old ratio of one passenger for every 5 tons.48 The Colonial Office had no hand in framing this legislation; nor did it appear to be aware of the implications of the change that was made. In 1816, when uniform legislation had prevailed, 9,022 people had left the United Kingdom for the United States and 3,360 for British North America.49 Under the new legislation the cost of a passage to Quebec was reduced to about one-half of the fare to New York. As the number of timber ships involved in the trade with North America increased, the cost fell further. Emigrants were influenced im­mediately by the difference; in 1817, 10,280 of them sailed to the United States and 9,979 to British North America. By 1819 almost 70 per cent of the emigrant trade was directed towards the colonial ports; 10,674 sailed to the United States and 23,543 to British North America. The revised passenger legislation had effectively shifted the course of a swelling stream of emigrants.

The greatest number of those who disembarked in British North America disappeared across the American border. The route that emigrants were taking had changed, but their destination remained the same, as the sudden importance of the port of St. Andrew’s made abundantly clear. St. Andrew’s, New Brunswick, was remarkable for its proximity to the border of Maine. Through it passed emigrants to the United States who took advantage of the cheaper fares to British North America. The number of Ulstermen who chose this route is suggested by the figures for the first six months of 1819.50 Of thirty-nine emigrant vessels sailing from Belfast in this period, fourteen were headed for Quebec, thirteen for St. Andrew’s, two for other ports in British North America, and ten for ports in the United {26} States. Emigrants who could afford to sail directly to the United States travelled in relative comfort in vessels carrying forty or fifty passengers. Those who took the indirect route shared the confined space of a single vessel with 150 or 200 others. Over 2,500 Ulstermen from Belfast landed at St. Andrew’s while no more than 437 dis­embarked at New York, Baltimore, and Philadelphia. For the Irish St. Andrew’s had become a major port of entry into the United States.

Quebec shared this experience, but on a larger scale. No immigrant-port in North America was busier than Quebec in the years after 1817. About 40 per cent of all British emigrants landed w there in 1819, and Quebec consistently received more than 10,000 emigrants in a year.51 Yet this great demand on her facilities con­tributed surprisingly little to the settlement of the Canadas. W. B. Felton, a well-informed legislative councillor in Lower Canada, estimated that for every 8,000 emigrants who proceeded from Quebec to the United States, only 500 stayed in Lower Canada and no more than 1,500 went to Upper Canada.52 There were superior opportunities in the republic and they were better known and advertised. Emigrants arrived at Quebec with a firm intention to cross the border. Either they followed the Richelieu River and Lake Champlain to New York State and New England, or, more fre­quently, they went by way of the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes to Upper New York State, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois.53 For the most part, the emigrants who remained in Quebec were the sick, the dying, and the destitute. The new pattern of emigration produced by the passenger legislation of 1817 created problems for the colonial government without adding much to the colonial population.

The Colonial Office did not foresee the large numbers of emigrants that would be passing through British North America under the altered passenger regulations. It was in this state of ignorance that Bathurst considered the renewal of assisted emigration in 1817. His interest now included settlement at the Cape as well as in British North America. At this time no tradition existed of British emigra­tion to South Africa. The Cape of Good Hope had been taken from the Dutch eleven years earlier, and the British position there had {27}been confirmed by treaty for less than two years. Although officials at the Cape had requested British settlers as early as 1813, Lord Bathurst had not replied until some time after the status of the colony was decided.54 In July 1817 he introduced the idea as if it were a new one. He advised Lord Charles Somerset, the Governor at the Cape, that a great many individuals had applied for help to emigrate and that more than one of them wanted to go to South Africa; he asked Somerset whether or not an extensive British settle­ment could be established at the Cape and what arrangements would be the most practical to follow.

Somerset saw emigration as a means to strengthen defences in the region of the Great Fish Fiver, the formal boundary between the colony and the Bantu territories. In the early years of the century Xhosa tribesmen had moved into the frontier district in large numbers and their murders and robberies had become such a menace to Dutch settlers that by 1811 only one family remained east of Uitenhage.55 In 1812 the Xhosa had been cleared out of the region west of the Great Fish, but since then Somerset had been obliged to keep a military force on the frontier. In 1817the numberof troops at the Cape had been reduced from 4,000 to 2,400 as part of a general measure of economy. Somerset was anxious to withdraw his frontier forces and he believed that he would be able to do so if that area were well popu­lated. Xhosa raids could then be contained by the settlers themselves.

Bathurst suggested two methods of disposing of land to emigrants: large grants to men of means or small grants to individual settlers. In his reply of December 1817 Somerset declared for the former.56 If land were granted only to capitalists who brought out labourers, a struggling settlement would automatically be provided with the leadership that Somerset believed would be essential. Settlers would need to be ready to protect their livestock and property from the Xhosa. A major proprietor would be less exposed to plunder than an individual farmer. Without the co-operative action that a large land­holder could enforce upon his tenants or servants, a colony in the Zuurveld would be less than secure. {28}

These were not the reasons which convinced the Colonial Secretary that large grants would produce the best results both at the Cape and in Canada. Bathurst wished to restrict as well as to encourage the movement of people to the colonies. Immigrants were not always desirable. Bathurst believed that the established policy of giving at least 100 acres of land to each British subject who applied in Canada led the wrong class of people to emigrate. A minimum capital requirement might prevent an unwanted influx of paupers. This thinking produced a plan for approval in December 1817.57 Grants of crown land would be reserved for men with enough capital to employ and settle per­manently at least ten families. An applicant would require at least £20 per adult male in his party to qualify. One-half of this money would be demanded in advance to be repaid once he had fulfilled his contract. The advantages of these regulations, as Goulburn saw them, were: first, that they would promote concentrated settlement;k second, that they would ensure proper use of capital; and third, that they would protect the colonies from an inundation of idle persons. To induce men with capital to emigrate on these terms Goulburn asked the Treasury to sanction free passages. In comparison with the assistance that had been given in 1815, this would be a modest concession.

The plan was drawn up before Somerset’s opinion was available. His dispatch advocating the colonization of the Zuurveld did not arrive in London until February 1818.58 By then circulars describing terms of assistance to emigrants were in print and, in a few instances, already distributed. The Colonial Office acted on its own initiative and without any specific regard for the problem of policing the Kaffir frontier. One consideration figured pre-eminently in 1818 as in 1815: it was desirable to send to the colonies superior emigrants who might otherwise go to the United States. This consideration led the Colonial Office to offer uniform terms to emigrants going either to the Cape or to the North American provinces.

The scheme is interesting as an illustration of Colonial Office intentions rather than as an example of effective policy. Lord {29} Bathurst and his Treasury colleagues did not propose to support emigration in a liberal way. The offer of free passages was not advertised and potential emigrants were advised of it only if they wrote to the Colonial Office for information. Few people applied and fewer received official approval. Only four parties were given assist­ance in the first year: two of fifty or sixty people from Alston, Cumberland; a third of about 170 people, all Protestants, from Cloghjordan, Tipperary; and a fourth of over 300 from Breadalbane, Perthshire.59 With the exception of some members of the Scottish party who went to Prince Edward Island, all of the assisted emigrants settled in Upper Canada. Some of them were quite well off. In the Irish party at least one settler was worth £300; no less than six possessed £100, and many had a minimum of £40 or £50.60 Most of the emigrants were tenant farmers who were able to muster enough money to meet the terms of the government’s offer.

Altogether, between 600 and 700 emigrants were sent to Canada in 1818 at a cost to the government of about £4,000, a sum smaller than Bathurst’s annual salary.61 This effort was dwarfed by the 10,000 voluntary emigrants who reached British North American ports in 1817 and the 14,500 who came in 1818. It became apparent that unassisted emigrants travelling under the new passenger regula­tions were going to continue to arrive at Quebec in large numbers. The most unfortunate consequence would be the dumping of hundreds of paupers on the towns of Quebec and Montreal. Emigrants with money could afford the journey to New York State or Illinois. Those who disembarked without a penny became a burden upon the colonials. In the winter of 1819-20 about 500 pauper emigrants were supported by public charity in Quebec and Montreal and there were many others distributed throughout the province.62By encouraging a few large parties of selected emigrants {30} the Colonial Office was not controlling the influx of paupers as it had hoped to do.

With respect to the Cape the offer of free passages was of no significance at all. Emigrants usually followed a beaten path and South Africa would have attracted them only if the government’s scheme had been advertised. In the absence of any public announce­ment there were only a handful of inquiries and just one acceptable application.63 The last involved a party of nineteen families which sailed near the end of the spring of 1819. During the same season a small party bound for Upper Canada embarked at Hull. This was the last group to sail to Quebec on the terms set out in 1818.64 Bathurst and Goulburn were either unwilling or unable to carry out a vigorous test of their ideas. By the autumn of 1818 they had lost interest in the experiment and by the spring of 1819 they were telling new correspondents that free passages could not be expected in the future. “You have been misinformed,” Goulburn wrote in June to a group of prospective emigrants to the Cape; “no assistance is given to Settlers beyond a grant of land on their arrival in the Colony.”65

 

The Colonial Office abandoned its programme of sponsored emigra­tion just as the Cabinet and Parliament became convinced of the domestic value of such a measure. In July 1819 Nicholas Vansittart, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, proposed a grant of £50,000 to send unemployed workmen to the Cape. He not only received the approval that he expected, but was “hailed with applause from every part of the House”.66 In the atmosphere of crisis that prevailed in 1819 the idea of pauper emigration was remarkably popular and Cabinet ministers were prepared to promote it in a partial way. The initiative now came from outside the Colonial Office. In sanctioning assistance to indigent emigrants Parliament ignored the priorities the {31} Colonial Office had observed since 1815. It had never been the intention of that department to encourage people to emigrate who otherwise would have stayed in Britain. The traditional view of population as a national asset dictated the thinking of the Colonial Secretary and his Under-Secretary. They revealed no appreciation of the emigration ideas advanced by Torrens, Hayter, and Colquhoun. Their objective in sponsoring emigration was to strengthen British possessions overseas. They wanted self-sufficient emigrants not paupers. The terms on which they granted assistance were designed , to disqualify the indigent and the near indigent. They actcd without reference to growing public concern about unemployment and over-population. Their measures were justified as valuable, to the colonies but of no consequence to the home country. In this way, the emigration experiments of 1815 and 1818-19, which were conceived entirely within the Colonial Office stand apart from those that followed.

  1. F. O. Darvall, Popular Disturbances in Regency England (London, 1934), p. 319.
  2. A Treatise on the Wealth, Power, and Resources of the British Empire (London, 1814), p. 16.
  3. John Davidson, Considerations on the Poor Laws (Oxford, 1817), p. 117.
  4. S. W. Nichol, A Summary View of the Report and Evidence Relative to the Poor Laws (York, 1818), p. 98.
  5. For examples see: T. P. Courtenay, A Treatise upon the Poor Laws (London, 1818); [Sidney Walker or Robert Lundie
  6. General Introduction to Statistical Accounts of Upper Canada (London, 1822), p. clxxxii.
  7. ii, 304-5.
  8.  Robert Torrens, “A Paper on the Means of Reducing the Poor’s Rates”, The Pamphleteer, x, no. 20, 1817; W. G. Hayter, Proposals for the Redemption of the Poor’s Rates by means of Emigration (London, 1817); C.0.48/40, Hayter to Bathurst, 15 July 1819. On Torrens’s paper see R. D. Collison Black, Economic Thought and the Irish Question (Cambridge, i960), pp. 204-5.
  9. He believed that the area adjacent to Mossel Bay, Plattenburg Bay, and Algoa Bay could be colonized by 40,000 or 50,000 paupers within a five-year period.
  10. This is suggested by John Barrow writing about the Cape in the Quarterly Review, Nov. 1819, p. 205.
  11. Parliamentary Papers, 1817, vi (462), 20.
  12. Parliamentary Papers, 1819, ii (529), 10.
  13. C.O. 43/59, Goulburn to Harrison, 15 May 1820.
  14. British Colonial Government After the American Revolution (New Haven, 1933), p. 481.
  15. C. W. W. Wynn cited in W. R. Brock, Lord Liverpool and Liberal Torysim, 1820-7 (Cambridge, 1941), p. 73
  16. This becomes apparent on examination of Bathurst’s correspondence in B.M. Loan 57.
  17.  C.O. 42/355, Drummond to Bathurst, 12 July 1814.
  18. George C. Patterson, Land Settlement in Upper Canada 1783-1840 (Toronto, 1921), p. 112.
  19. A Statistical Account of Upper Canada, ii (London, 1822), 423.
  20. CO. 43/23, Bathurst to Prevost, 29 Oct. 1813; C.O. 42/355, Drummond to Bathurst, 12 July 1814.
  21. G. M. Craig, Upper Canada: The Formative Years (Toronto 1963), p. 76; G. S. Graham,”‘Views of General Murray on the Defence ofUpper Canada, 1815″, C.H.R., June 1953, pp. 158-65; and A. R. M. Lower, “Immigration and Settlement in Canada, 1812-1820”, C.H.R., March 1922, pp. 38-9.
  22. Add. MSS. 40288, Peel to Hill, 29 Jan. 1815.
  23. Add. MSS. 40288, Peel to Enniskillen, 29 Jan. 1815.
  24. Add. MSS. 40242, Goulburn to Peel, 21 Jan. 1815.
  25. Hansard, 1815, xxx, col. 52.
  26. The announcement of the government’s offer included a disclaimer of any intention to increase emigration. See C.O. 42/165, Campbell to Goulburn, 23 Mar. 1815, and the Caledonian Mercury, 27 Mar. 1815.
  27.  Add. MSS. 40288, Peel to Gregory, 11 Mar. 1815, Peel to Bathurst, 2 Apr. 1815, and Peel to Gregory, 3 Apr. 1815.
  28. C.O. 42/164, Transport Office to Goulburn, 13 Mar. 1815; C.O. 43/23, Bathurst to Drummond, 20 Mar. 1815.
  29. C.O. 43/23, Bathurst to Drummond, 20 Mar. 1815; C.O. 42/164, Transport Office to Goulburn, 23 and 29 Mar. 1815, and Treasury to Goulburn, 19 Apr. 1815.
  30. On the reasons for delay: Add. MSS. 40288, Peel to Enniskillen, 29 Jan. 1815. On the appointment of an agent in Scotland; C.O. 42/165, Campbell to Bathurst, 24 Feb. 1815 and 11 Mar. 1815. On the advertising in England and Ireland: C.O. 42/165, Campbell to Goulburn, 20 Mar. 1815.
  31. C.O. 43/52, Goulburn to Transport Office, 1 Apr. 1815.
  32. C.O. 42/165, Campbell to Goulburn, 6 May 1815, and Campbell to Bathurst, 4 Mar. 1815, 3 Apr. 1815, 25 Apr. 1815. C.O. 43/23, Bathurst to Drummond, 13 June 1815; Caledonian Mercury, 4 May 1815; Hansard, 1815, xxxi, Col. 917.
  33. C.O. 42/165, Campbell to Goulburn, 24 Mar. 1815; C.O. 43/52, Goulburn to Transport Office, 7 Apr. 1815, and 14 Apr. 1815.
  34. C.O. 385/2.
  35. C.O. 42/163, Drummond to Bathurst, 23 and 27 Sept. 1815.
  36. E. C. Guillet, The Great Migration (Toronto, 1963), p. 167; G. F. Playter, “An Account of the Founding of Three Military Settlements in Eastern Canada—Perth, Lanark and Richmond, 1815-20”, O.H.S.P.R. xx (1923), p. 98.
  37. C.O. 43/23, Bathurst to Drummond, 13 June 1815.
  38. H. I. Cowan, British Emigration to British North America (Toronto, 1961), pp. 63-4.
  39. C.O. 42/165, Campbell to Bathurst, 14 Oct. 1815; Add. MSS. 40249, Goulburn to Peel, 28 Nov. 1815.
  40. Hansard, 1816, xxxiii, col. 480.
  41. C.O. 43/53, Goulburn to Campbell, 15 Apr. 1816.
  42. C.O.43/54, Bathurst to Vansittart, 4 Jan. 1817, and Goulburn to McCrummen, 23 Jan. 1817.
  43. For example see C.O. 43/53, Goulburn to Beckett, 11 May 1816, and C.O. 43/54, Goulburn to McClay, 31 Dec. 1816.
  44. F.O. 5/116, Buchanan to Castlereagh, 4 Dec. 1816; F.O. 5/125, Buchanan to Hamilton, 15 Mar. 1817; C.O. 42/167, Sherbrooke to Bathurst, 22 Aug. 1816.
  45. C.O. 43/24, Bathurst to Sherbrooke, 10 Jan. 1817; C.O. 43/54, Goulburn to Hamilton, 21 Nov. 1816; F.O. 5/116, Hamilton to Buchanan, 4 Dec. 1816.
  46. F.O. 5/125, Buchanan to Castlereagh, 5 Nov. 1817 (enclosure); John Strachan, Remarks on Emigration from the United Kingdom Addressed to Robert Wilmot Horton Esq. M.P. (London, 1827), p. 51; Parliamentary Papers, 1826, iv (404), 167-8; Edith G. Firth, ed., The Town of York, 1815-1834(Toronto, 1966), p. 39
  47. James Buchanan, Project for the Formation of a Depot in Upper Canada to Receive the Whole Pauper Population of England (New York, 1834), p. 9; C.O. 42/186, Buchanan to Goulburn, 6 July 1820, (enclosure); Parliamentary Papers, 1817, xiii (319), 5.
  48. Jones, “Transatlantic Emigrant Trade”, pp. 66-7.
  49. Cowan, Appendix B, p. 288.
  50. See Jones, pp. 47-8, 84-8. Destinations of vessels leaving Belfast from January to July are given in the Evening Mail, 19-21 July 1819.
  51. Cowan, p. 288; and figures from the Port of Quebec exchange boots cited by N. Gould, Emigration, Practical Advice to Emigrants (London, 1834), p. 118.
  52. Parliamentary Papers, 1826, iv (404), 101.
  53.  Jones, p. 84.
  54. C.O.48/29, Somerset to Bathurst, 20 Jan. 1815; C.O. 49/12, Bathurst to Somerset, 28 July 1817.
  55. Ibid., 3 Apr. 1815; Records of Cape Colony, xi, Somerset to Bathurst, 24 Apr. 1817: C.O. 48/76, Somerset to Bathurst, 18 Dec. 1817; G. M. Theal, History of South Africa, v (Capetown, 1964), 249-64; G. E. Corry, The Rise of South Africa, i (London, 1913), 220-50.
  56. C.O. 48/76, Somerset to Bathurst, 18 Dec. 1817.
  57.  C.O. 43/24, Bathurst to Sherbrooke, 10 Nov. 1817; C.O. 43/56, Goulburn to Treasury, 6 Dec. 1817.
  58. The dispatch dated 18 Dec. 1817 was received 9 Feb. 1818. A circular was sent to Richard Talbot on 7 Feb. 1818. See E. A. Talbot, Five Years Residence in the Canadas, i (London, 1824), 9, and C.O. 384/3, Talbot to Goulburn, 7 Mar. 1818. For the full text of the circular see Parliamentary Papers, 1819, ii (529), 25.
  59. Cowan, pp. 44-7. For the correspondence of the party leaders, Milbum, Leathart, Robertson, and Talbot, with the Colonial Office and for Navy Office replies to requests for transports: C.O. 384/1, 3, 4. For Colonial Office instructions to Navy Office and to Canadian government: C.O. 43/24, 56, 57. For a record of deposits by individuals in Robertson’s party: A.O. 1-2131/3 and 5. On the Talbot party; Talbot, Five Years Residence in the Canadas.
  60. Talbot, ii. 197-8.
  61. Statement of expenses for passages from Whitehaven, Cork, and Greenock: C.O. 42/183, Navy Office to Goulburn, 16 Feb. 1819; salaries of Colonial Office personnel; D. M. Young, The Colonial Office in the Early Nineteenth Century (London, 1961), p. 274.
  62. C.O. 42/182, Monk to Bathurst, 8 Nov. 1819 and enclosure; Talbot, ii. 214; C.O. 42/183, Treasury to Goulburn, 23 Mar. 1819.
  63. I. E. Edwards, The 1820 Settlers in South Africa (London, 1934), pp. 47-9. See correspondence with Atkinson, Beale, and Tait: C.O. 48/38 and 49/11.
  64. See Spilsbury correspondence: C.O. 384/3 and 5; and C.O. 43/24, Bathurst to Richmond, 8 Mar. 1819.
  65. CO. 49/11, Goulburn to Matheson, 5 June 1819. For some time Goulburn had been advising people who inquired independently that no assistance was given to individuals. The point here is that he denies that there is a policy of encouraging groups. In the same volume of correspondence there is a curious letter from Goulburn to G. Banks, 8 June 1819, suggesting to Banks that the Cape would be a better place in which to settle than British North America: Goulburn, however, does not offer transportation; settlers must “convey themselves”.
  66. {John Barrow}, “The Cape of Good Hope”, Quarterly Review, xxii, Nov. 1819, pp. 208-9.