Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:15:39.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

John Mandeville and the Irish crimes act of 1887

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2016

Laurence M. Geary
Laurence M. Geary*
Affiliation:
Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Imprisonment is a reality of discipline most useful to the modern soul, lapped as it is in physical sloth and self-indulgence. Like a sickness or a spiritual retreat it purifies and ennobles; and the soul emerges from it stronger and more self-contained. Alas, that these influences should so soon lose their power! And yet, fall as we may from the higher level, they do not wholly perish, but remain for us a wholesonle recollection and a standard of all that we can imagine best for this life and another. (Wilfrid Scawen Blunt, In vinculis (London, 1889), pp vii-viii.)

We have repeatedly called attention to the fact. .that the food and discipline to which prisoners are evidently subjected, under at least the first stage of the penal system, and during short terms of confinement in her majesty’s jails and penitentiaries, are destructive to health and consequently dangerous to life. (Lancet, 21 Jan. 1882.)

Type
Articles
Information
Irish Historical Studies , Volume 25 , Issue 100 , November 1987 , pp. 358 - 375
Copyright
Copyright © Irish Historical Studies Publications Ltd 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Mandeville inquest: return to an order of the honourable the house of commons, dated 13 August 1888, for copy of transcript of shorthand writer's notes of proceedings, p. 116, H.C. 1888 (373), lxxxiii, 216.

2 Ibid., p. 56.

3 For details of this agitation, the second phase of the Irish land war, see Geary, Laurence M., The Plan of Campaign, 1886-1891 (Cork, 1986).Google Scholar

4 Ibid., pp 60–77

5 For the agitation on this estate, see Geary, Laurence M., ‘The land war on the Kingston estate, 1879-1888’ (unpublished M.A. thesis, University College, Cork, 1979).Google Scholar

6 Cork Examiner, 10, 12 Aug. 1887

7 S.P.O., Irish Land League and Irish National League papers, Speeches, 1879–88, carton no. 1.

8 Mandeville to Hallifax, 2 Sept. 1887, cited in Hallifax, Sydney, John Mandeville, martyr: the story of his prosecution, imprisonment and death, with extracts from his correspondence on Irish affairs (London and Manchester, 1888), pp 5–6.Google Scholar According to JrCurtis, L.P, Coercion and conciliation in Ireland, 1880–1892 (Princeton, 1963), p. 224 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, n. 17, Balfour believed that Mandeville’s letters in this pamphlet were forgeries. However, at least one of the letters, Mandeville to Hallifax, 2 Jan. 1888, survives in MS form. It is in the possession of Mandeville’s grand-niece, Mrs Mary Hanrahan, Ballycurkeen House, Carrick-on-Suir, Co. Tipperary. In addition, much of the information contained in the remainder of the letters was freely available in other printed sources, especially newspapers and the proceedings of the inquest.

9 S.P.O., C.S.O., R.P 1887/16824.

10 Mandeville, Mary, ‘A narrative of my husband’s treatment at Tullamore, as stated by him to me on his return’, edited and introduced by Geary, Laurence M., in Cork Hist. Soc. Jn. (forthcoming)Google Scholar. Mary’s account of her husband’s prison treatment was written in 1888, probably at the instigation of William O’Brien. It is based on John’s recollections, as well as her own, on newspaper reports and on a personal diary which she kept intermittently between 24 November and 31 December 1887. The original is in the William O'Brien papers, University College, Cork. It is hereafter cited as Mary Mandeville, ‘Narrative’

11 Mandeville inquest, p. 8.

12 Ibid., p. 57

13 Mary Mandeville, ‘Narrative’

14 Balfour to Sir Joseph West Ridgeway, 8 Nov 1887 (B.L., Balfour papers, Add. MS 49808).

15 Mandeville inquest, p. 7

16 Ibid., p. 5.

17 Balfour to Benjamin Armitage, 24 Nov 1887

l8 Copy of rules and regulations in force in the prisons in Ireland, pp 10–12, H.C. 1888 (329), lxxxii, 698–700.

19 Mandeville inquest, p. 12.

20 Ibid., p. 4.

21 Blunt, Wilfrid Scawen, The land war in Ireland; being a personal narrative of events (London, 1912), p. 371.Google Scholar

22 Rules and regulations, p. 12, H.C. 1888 (329), lxxxii, 700.

23 An individual serving between 1 and 4 months imprisonment without hard labour — the category in which Mandeville and the majority of crimes act prisoners found themselves — spent the first month on class 2 diet and the remainder of his sentence on class 3. In the first category, daily breakfast consisted of 5 ounces of bread, 1 pint of cocoa and ¾ of a pint of new milk. Supper differed only in that the milk ration was reduced to ½ a pint. Dinner on Sundays and Thursdays consisted of 5 ounces of bread, 6 ounces of suet pudding and ¾ of a pint of new milk. On Wednesdays and Fridays, 8 ounces of potatoes were substituted for the suet pudding. On the remaining 3 days, dinner comprised 13 ounces of bread and ½ a pint of soup. On class 3 diet, daily breakfast consisted of 1½ pints of stirabout, made from 3½ ounces each of oatmeal and Indian meal, and ¾ of a pint of new milk. Supper was 8 ounces of bread and 1½ pint of cocoa. For Sunday dinner, prisoners received 1 pint of meat soup, containing 4 ounces of boneless beef, and 1 pound of potatoes. On Wednesdays and Fridays, they were given 8 ounces of bread and 14 ounces of potatoes and for the remaining 4 days they received 14 ounces of bread and 1 pint of vegetable soup. (Rules and regulations, p. 30, H.C. 1888 (329), lxxxii, 718.)

24 Blunt to the editor, 3 Aug. 1888, in Freeman’s Journal (hereafter F.J.), 6 Aug. 1888.

25 Lane to Coroner R. Rice, 2 Aug. 1888, in F.J., 6 Aug. 1888.

26 Mandeville to Hallifax, 2 Jan. 1888 ( Hallifax, , Mandeville, pp 11–14).Google Scholar

27 Mandeville to Harrington, 27 Dec. 1887 (N.L.I., Harrington papers, MS 8576/29).

28 Rules and regulations, pp 14–15, H.C. 1888 (329), lxxxii, 702–3.

29 W J. Lane to R. Rice, 2 Aug. 1888, in F.J., 6 Aug. 1888.

30 Ridegway to Balfour, 7 Nov. 1887, Balfour to Ridgeway,8 Nov. 1887 (B.L., Balfour papers, Add. MS 49808).

31 Mandeville inquest, p. 72 (Fetherstonhaugh’s evidence), pp 9–10 (O’Brien’s evidence).

32 F.J., 14–25 Nov 1887

33 Mandeville inquest, pp 12–13 (Moorhead’s evidence), p. 28 (Ronayne’s evidence).

34 Mandeville to Hallifax, 2 Jan. 1888 ( Hallifax, , Mandeville, pp 11–14).Google Scholar

35 Mandeville inquest, pp 13–14.

36 Mary Mandeville, ‘Narrative’

37 Mandeville inquest, p. 51.

38 Mary Mandeville to Hallifax, 15 Nov 1887 ( Hallifax, , Mandeville, p. 9).Google Scholar

39 O’Brien, William, Evening mentones (Dublin, 1920), pp 313–16Google Scholar. See also Smith, Beverley A., ‘William O’Brien, Mr Balfour’s prisoner’ in Éire–Ireland, 18, no. 4 (winter, 1983), p. 77 Google Scholar

40 Ridgeway to Balfour, 29 Nov 1887 (B.L., Balfour papers, Add. MS 49808). The General Prisons Board concluded that ‘the priests introduced the clothes into O’Brien’s cell’ (Ridgeway to Balfour, 3 Dec. 1887, ibid.).

41 Under cross-examination, the prison governor parried The MacDermott’s probings and refused to elaborate on the source of his instructions (Mandeville inquest, p. 73).

42 Mandeville inquest, p. 43 (Goulding’s evidence), pp 60–61 (Bartley's evidence), p. 69 (Fetherstonhaugh’s evidence).

43 Ridgeway to Balfour, 10 Nov. 1887 (B.L., Balfour papers, Add. MS 49808).

44 Mandeville inquest, p. 114 (Moorhead’s evidence), pp 160–61 (Bartley’s evidence).

45 F.J., 24 Nov 1887

46 Ibid., 26 Nov. 1887.

47 John O’Brien to Mary Mandeville, 28 Nov. 1887, in Cork Examiner, 29 Nov 1887

48 Mandeville inquest, pp 14–15.

49 Ibid., pp 78–80.

50 Mandeville to Harrington, 27 Dec. 1887 (N.L.I., Harrington papers, MS 8576/29).

51 Mandeville inquest, p. 15.

52 Balfour to Armitage, 24 Nov 1887, in The Times, 26 Nov 1887

53 Mary Mandeville, ‘Narrative’, diary entry for 1 Dec. 1887

54 Mandeville inquest, pp 78–80. Mandeville was visited constantly by Dr Moorhead during the first three weeks of December. Unfortunately, he did not keep records of the entries he made in the visitor’s book between 30 Nov and20 Dec.

55 Ibid.

56 Mandeville to Hallifax, 2 Jan. 1888 ( Hallifax, , Mandeville, pp 11–14)Google Scholar. See also Mandeville inquest, p. 15 (Moorhead’s evidence); Mary Mandeville, ‘Narrative’

57 Tenth report of the General Prisons Board, Ireland, 1887–88, pp 64–5, H.C. 1888 [C.5547], lviii, 454–5.

58 Mandeville inquest, p. 15.

59 F.J., 27 Dec. 1887

60 Ibid.

61 Ibid., 27 Jan. 1888.

62 Mary Mandeville, ‘Narrative’ See also Mandeville inquest, pp 3–4.

63 Mary Mandeville, ‘Narrative’

64 Mandeville inquest, p. 99.

65 Mary Mandeville, ‘Narrative’

66 Ibid.

67 Pease, Alfred E. Sir, Elections and recollections (London, 1932), p. 214.Google Scholar

68 United Ireland, 21 July 1888.

69 S.P.O., C.S.O., R.P 1888/16081.

70 Ibid., 1888/14550.

71 0’Brien to Balfour, 22, 29 July 1888 (B.L., Balfour papers, Add. MS 49814).

72 P.R.O., CO. 903/2, series vii, ‘The case of Mr Mandeville’.

73 Ibid.

74 Mary Mandeville, ‘Narrative’

75 Barry to the editor, 3 Oct. 1888, in United Ireland, 13 Oct. 1888.

76 Mandeville inquest, pp 5, 8, 10, 18, 37, 75, 77.

77 Lancet, 4 Aug. 1888.

78 Modern medical opinion would probably agree that stress, caused by his imprisonment, weakened his immune system and left him prone to the infection that killed him.

79 Mary Mandeville, ‘Narrative’

80 Harrington to Dr Moorhead, 27 July 1888 (N.L.I., Harrington papers, MS 4632).

81 F.J., 1–18 Aug. 1888. Curtis, , Coercion & conciliation, p. 224, n.18Google Scholar, quotes Ridgeway to the effect that a combination of illness and money problems drove Ridley to suicide. This assertion is directly contradicted by much of the evidence given at the inquest. George Ridley testified that his son James had made a comfortable living, earning between £400 and £500 annually, from private practice and several public offices. George P Ridley, who had acted as the deceased’s medical assistant, corroborated his uncle’s testimony, specifically the absence of financial worries and the felicity of Ridley's domestic situation. Neither made any reference to physical ill health or to the probability of a throat operation as referred to by Ridgeway

82 Mandeville inquest, pp 92–3 (Moore’s evidence), pp 82–7 (Barr’s evidence).

83 Ibid., p. 108.

84 P.R.O., CO. 903/2, ‘Mandeville’

85 S.P.O., C.S.O., R.P 1888/16081.

86 P.R.O., CO. 903/2, ‘Mandeville’

87 Hansard 3, cccxxix, 764 (30 July 1888).

88 Ibid., cccxxxi, 912 (3 Dec. 1888). See also The Times, 2 Oct. 1888; O’Brien, William, The murder of John Mandeville: a speech in Wales in reply to Mr Balfour (London, 1888).Google Scholar

89 United Ireland, 8 Sept. 1888.

90 Blunt to the editor, 3 Aug. 1888, in F.J., 6 Aug. 1888.

91 Ridgeway to Balfour, 27 June 1888 (B.L., Balfour papers, Add. MS 49808), quoted in Lyons, F.S.L., John Dillon: a biography (London, 1968), p. 98.Google Scholar

92 Smith, , ‘O’Brien’, p. 88.Google ScholarPubMed

93 Report of the committee of inquiry as to the rules concerning the wearing of prison dress, etc., together with minutes of evidence and appendices, p. vii, H.C. 1889 [C.5759], lxi, 269.

94 Ibid., pp vii–ix.

95 Criminal and judicial statistics (Ireland), 1887, p. 24, H.C. 1888 [C.5495], cviii, 264; 1888, p. 24, H.C. 1889 [C.5795], lxxxv, 264; 1889, p. 24, H.C. 1890 [C.6122], lxxx, 276; 1890, p. 24, H.C. 1890-91 [C.6511], xciii, 274; 1891, p. 24, H.C. 1892 [C.6782], lxxxix, 276.

96 Geary, , Plan of Campaign, pp 78–80 Google Scholar; Woods, C. J., ‘The catholic church and Irish politics, 1879–92’ (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Nottingham, 1968), p. 250.Google Scholar

97 Salisbury to Hicks Beach, 28 Feb. 1887 (Hatfield House, Hatfield, Herts, Salisbury papers, D/9/186).