The Quiet Revolution article was interesting especially the bit about how the Irishman negotiating with the Finns used the Irish language in his telegraph back to his superiors in Ireland to keep the Finns from understanding their communication. It reminded me of the Navajo code talkers of WW2. I wonder how many of the one million plus utility poles from Finland can still be found in the Irish countryside and if they have any distinguishing characteristics. An Irish friend explained to me that in recent decades most of the poles arriving into Ireland from Europe are no longer from Finland but from Poland. Something about the EU.
Thanks for highlighting that it was Canon John Hayes (1887 – 1957) who switched on the electricity in Bansha in 1946. The Irish post office issued a stamp in 1987 to commemorate the 100th anniversary of his birth and also the 50th anniversary of “Muintir na Tíre” which he had founded in 1937. Among the several illustrations on the stamp is a utility pole.
I thought Canon Hayes might have a County Clare connection, but he was born in County Limerick in a Land League hut (per numerous biographies on-line) in Ballyvorheen townland (per civil birth record) near the family’s home in Moher from which they were evicted in 1882 by Lord Cloncurry.
1887 birth: https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/files/civ ... 938162.pdf
His biography in the Dictionary of Irish Biography needs tidying up, the first paragraph specifically. It was written in 2009 prior to the on-line availability of so many Irish records. His parents married in 1874 and not 1872. The family was evicted in 1882 and not 1872, clearly a typo as the Land League was not even in existence in 1872. The eviction of 27 families in 1882 from the Lord Cloncurry estate was heavily reported in the Irish newspapers. This DIB error was copied to the Canon Hayes biography on wikipedia. During their twelve years living in the Land League hut, five of their ten children died (consistent with 1911 census) and not seven deaths as reported in the Dictionary of Irish Biography.
https://www.dib.ie/biography/hayes-john-martin-a3872
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_M._Hayes_(priest)
In Ballagh townland (not yet Ballagh House), three of the six children of James Clune (≈1812 – 1882) and Bridget Halloran (≈1823 – 1898) were born during the period of the Great Famine. Patrick born in 1845, Honor in 1849, and Michael in 1851. I reckon James Clune was very lucky to be a steward / caretaker for Patrick Corbett (≈1794 – 1892) of Derreen, who was a Poor Law Guardian in Ennis Union. In 1850, Patrick Corbett of Derreen wrote a letter to the Clare Journal calling out the neglectful treatment by the workhouse master of a poor man who died outside the Ennis workhouse gates on 12 January 1850:
The Clare Journal article of the 14th January referred to in the above letter by Patrick Corbett is below. It provides specifics that the poor man who died was John Flanagan and the Quin relieving officer was Henry Kitson:To the Editor of the Clare Journal
January 15, 1845 [a typo, should be 1850]
SIR—I have seen in your paper of the 14th, by the verdict of the Coroner’s Jury, the relieving officer of Quin charged with the death of a poor man named Flanagan, who died at or within a small distance of the [Ennis] Workhouse Gate, on the night of Saturday, the 12th of January. I beg to set you right, as you are a man that hates lies and loves truth; the relieving officer had Flanagan brought before the Board on a man’s back, when the Chairman, Sir Lucius O’Brien, very properly called on the master of the workhouse to provide a place at once in the house for the poor man. The master said he would at once. It appears after the Board was over, the man was turned out of the workhouse and died of cold and hunger by the wall side—it is little wonder in such frosty weather. It is high time to make the officers of the poor look sharp for their conduct towards them.
Your most obedient servant,
PAT CORBETT, P.L.G., Derreen
We deem it right to state that the evidence given at the inquest represents the matter in a very different light. We presume, however, that the subject will be brought before the Board at the meeting on Saturday.
Clare Journal and Ennis Advertiser, Thursday, 17 January 1850
The Clare Journal article of the 17th January after publishing Patrick Corbett’s letter ended with their presumption “that the subject will be brought before the Board at the meeting on Saturday”. The Clare Journal was mistaken as the Ennis Board of Guardians always met on a Wednesday, but the subject of who was responsible for the death of John Flanagan outside the gates of the Ennis workhouse on the night of January 12th was the key item on the agenda. The investigation and interviews of witnesses lasted over five hours, from 3 pm to past 8 pm. From the first paragraph below it is communicated that Patrick Corbett of Derreen was the uncle of Henry Kitson, the relieving officer of Quin.DEATH FROM DESTITUTION.
A poor man named John Flanagan, of Crevagh, near Quin, was found dead a short distance from the gate at the Ennis Workhouse, on Saturday evening last. The deceased attended the Board on that day to obtain admission. The Board gave the requisite order for that purpose, but it appears from the following verdict of a coroner’s jury, that owing to the neglect of the relieving officer, Henry Kitson, the poor man was left exposed to the cold until he expired.
Clare Journal and Ennis Advertiser, Monday, 14 January 1850We find that John Flanagan came by his death from the effects of cold, wet, and destitution, on the 12th last, and the jury are of opinion that had the relieving officer properly discharged his duty, and attended to his application in the Board room, the deceased would not be left exposed to the cold, which was the principal cause of death.
To Be Continued,ENNIS UNION—WEDNESDAY.
The usual weekly meeting of Guardians took place at the Board Room this day.
Mr. Knox, V.C., in the chair.
Present—Thomas Gibson, John Considine, *Patrick Kitson, John Bourke, Pat Corbett, James O’Dwyer, Michael Butler, Michael Silver, John Morony, John Leary, Captain Creagh, John McMahon, Daniel O’Connell, Terence Healy, Mat Canny, J.P., Michael Butler, Stephen O’Halloran, Hugh Ross O’Loghlen, and John Hartigan.
[An asterisk appears in front of Patrick Kitson with no explanation; presumably because he is the father of Henry Kitson, the Quin relieving officer. He does not vote on either of the board resolutions.]
The Board was occupied until 3 o’clock in the inspection of the relieving officers’ book and the admission of paupers.
DEATH FROM DESTITUTION.
The investigation into the circumstances connected with the death of John Flanigan, which had been fixed for this day, was brought before the Board after all the applications for relief had been disposed of. This poor man died near to the workhouse on Saturday, the 12th inst; an inquest was held on the body on the 14th, and the verdict of the Coroner’s jury appeared in the Clare Journal on that date, attributing the man’s death to cold and destitution, and charging the relieving officer for his division (Henry Kitson) with neglect of duty. In a subsequent number of this Journal a letter appeared from Mr. Pat Corbett, who is one of the Guardians, and uncle to the relieving officer, who impugned the truth of the verdict given at the inquest, asserting that the relieving officer had done his duty on the occasion, and that the blame rested upon the Master of the workhouse. The charge being one of a very serious nature against the officers accused, we subjoin a full report of the evidence taken on the occasion:—
Henry Kitson sworn and examined by Mr. Briscoe, P.L.I.—You are relieving officer for Quin electoral division? I am. Did you know the deceased, John Flanagan? Yes. When did he first apply to you for relief? On the 2nd of January inst. Was he ablebodied at that time? He was. Was he to appear before the Board for examination? Yes, I ordered him to attend on the 5th. Did he attend on that day? No. By Mr. Canny—Did you see him at the gate on that day? Yes, I met him after the Board had adjourned, and I then told him that his application had been refused because he did not attend. Was he ablebodied on the 5th? Yes. By Mr. Briscoe—Did he make another application to you, and when? He did, on the 9th. Was he ablebodied on that day? He was not near so ablebodied as when he made the first application. Was his case a sudden and urgent one on the 9th? I did not consider it so. (The Chairman here read the entries made by the relieving officer in his report book. On the 2nd of January he entered Flanagan as able-bodied, and the Chairman on that day (Sir Lucius O’Brien) had marked “refused” to his name, as he did not attend the board. On the 9th of January, the relieving officer entered him as infirm, with this remark—“Weak from hunger. Applies for the second time, and if not relieved, I fear he will die of hunger.”)—By Mr. Canny—Did you not consider that an urgent case, when you made such an entry in your book relative to it? I did not consider him in such urgent distress at the time I made that entry, but I did it for the purpose of pressing his case more forcibly on the attention of the Board at their meeting on Saturday the 12th.—Thouigh you wrote that remark on the 9th, it did not apply to the man’s condition on that day? No. By Mr. Briscoe—Did he appear before the Board on the 12th? He did. How did he come in? He was brought up as far at the Board room door on the back of another pauper. Did you see him come into the workhouse yard? I did not. Was he able to walk? He walked out of the Boardroom again himself.—What order did the Board make concerning him? To be admitted to the workhouse. Did you fill a ticket for him to that effect? I did. Did you give him that ticket? No; because I could not find him afterwards. Did you go to look for him? I did. Where? I first presented his ticket to the [workhouse] Master and he refused it, stating that he could not admit him in consequence of the sealed order of the Commissioners limiting the number to be received into the house. Did you do anything with that ticket afterwards? I went among the paupers at the gate to look for Flanagan, and could not find him. By Mr. Burke—How long was it, from the time you presented the ticket to the Master till you went to look for Flanagan at the gate? Not more than ten or fifteen minutes. By Mr. O’Halloran—When the Master told you that he had no room, did you apply to the Board? I do not think there was any chairman at the time, Sir Lucius O’Brien had left the room. Was there not a chairman afterwards? Yes, Mr. Knox was afterwards in the chair. Did you call the attention of Mr. Knox to the case? I did not. (The Chairman here remarked that on the day in question Sir Lucius O’Brien did not have the chair, until he had entered the room which was about three o’clock.) Mr. Morony to witness—How long did the Board sit afterwards? I cannot say. Did they sit more than an hour? Oh they did. At the time you tendered the ticket to the master, and he refused it, did you then let the conversation drop? No, I said it was a bad case, and he replied that he could not help it.—Had you seen Flanagan from the 9th to the 12th? No. By Mr. O’Halloran—In what condition did you consider him on the 12th when brought before the Board? I considered him a very bad case. Sir Lucius asked me about his previous circumstances; I told him that the he had been in gaol for some time for stealing a lamb, and that he had previously been in the Workhouse. Well, said he, I will make an order on the house for him; I replied, that it should be done immediately; and Sir Lucius then called Mr. O’Brien (the Master). What did Sir Lucius say to Mr. O’Brien? He called upon him to admit this man. What was the Master’s reply? He said, “O yes, Sir Lucius, let him be brought down to the hall.” Did the matter end there? It did for a short time. I continued, with the Chairman, going through the other applications in my report book. And after you had finished that, did you write the ticket for the man’s admission? I did, and handed it to the Master, who refused to take it. Was Sir Lucius O’Brien in the chair when you handed the Master the ticket? He was not, he had left the room in the meantime. Was there any other person in the chair at the time? No; I think not. (The Chairman here again remarked that he had taken the chair before Sir Lucius O’Brien left the room; and Mr. Gibson also remarked that Mr. Knox had certainly taken the chair immediately that Sir Lucius O’Brien left it.) Did you see Mr. Knox in the chair at any time afterwards? I did. After the Master refused to take the ticket what did you do? I went out about half an hour afterwards to look for the man in order to give him the ticket. But you knew it would be of no use? I wanted to give him the ticket. Did you not consider your duty then to apply to the Board to know what you should do? I thought I had done my duty by giving him the ticket. Did you give him the ticket? No; I could not find him at the gate. Would you have considered yourself justified in giving that man provisional relief? I would not. By the Chairman—You considered him an able-bodied man on the 5th? Yes. But you did not consider him able-bodied on the 9th? I did not. By Mr. Morony—From what cause? It might have been cold from being kept out, as he had no house of his own, but not entirely from hunger. I find that on the 10th he bought half an ounce of tobacco in Quin and I have a woman to prove it. (Mr. Morony did not consider that the fact of the poor man having bought some tobacco was any proof that he was not in a state of destitution, and Mr. Considine observed that frequently in his own shop, he considered it his duty to refuse to sell tobacco to many starving persons who came in asking for it, and told them to buy food.) Would you have given him provisional relief on the 9th? I would not. Would you have given it on the 12th? Yes, for he was very much altered in his appearance. Did you consider him a subject for provisional relief? I did not consider him such at any time he applied to me. Do you know what became of him after he left the Board Room? He went down stairs. But did you see him afterward? Yes, I saw, through the Board Room window, two paupers putting him out by the gate. How long was it after you saw the paupers put him out, till you went to search for him? It was about ten or fifteen minutes. Were the paupers forcing him out? Yes, certainly, forcing him out. Were they putting other paupers out of the gate at the same time? They were. Was it after you saw the man put out of the gate, that you gave the ticket to the master? It was. Did the paupers use greater violence to Flanagan than to any others whom they were putting out? They did not. Is it not usual for the applicants to remove outside the gate after they leave the Board Room? (Mr. Briscoe here observed that the usual custom was to have all put outside the gate except such as were furnished with tickets. If Flanagan had been furnished with a ticket he certainly would not have been put out.) By the Chairman—Did the master make any objection to admit this man, when Sir Lucius O’Brien asked him? He did not. When the master refused to take the ticket did you tell him that it was for the man he had promised to admit? I did not.
Anne Flanagan, the wife of the deceased, was next examined by Mr. Briscoe—Your husband is dead? He is. Were you in the workhouse? I was.—How many children had you with you in the workhouse? Only one, the others are all dead. When did you leave the workhouse? In harvest.—Was it at your own desire you left it? At the desire of my husband. Were you and your husband always living together, after you left the house? No. Where were you living? At Dangan. How were you supported there? I got a little from the neighbours.—Where did your husband go? He went to Tradree, and to the O’Donohues of Rinana, where he was jobbing. When did he come back? A short time before Christmas, I cannot say how long. Did you both live together when he came back? We did, sir; he used to be going and coming. Did you ever apply to the relieving officer? No. Do you know did your husband apply to him? Oh he did. He was more than a month going to the relieving officer before he took down his name. Do you know a person named Crimmins? I do. Do you know what day your husband was at Crimmins? It was on a Wednesday night, the 9th inst. Did he get anything to eat there? Yes, Crimmins told me since that they gave him some gruel and turnips. When did you see him after that? He came to me on Thursday. What distance was it? About 3 or 4 miles.—Did he go to the relieving officer on Thursday? Yes; he told me he had been with the relieving officer.—What distance was the relieving officer from Crimmin’s? About a mile. How far then did your husband walk on that day altogether? About 5 miles.—When he came to you on Thursday evening was he wet? He was, sir, and he was scarcely able to come in the door to me. He asked me for the honour of God to let him near the fire, for he was perished.—I afterwards got a grain of meal from the woman of the house, and made gruel of it for him, mixing it with a couple of turnips. Did he use it? Indeed he did. Did he complain during the night? He complained that he was nearly gone. What did he mean by that? Oh, that his heart was gone from starvation, sir. How was he on Friday morning? I wanted him to get up on that morning, and he desired me to get him a bed. He said he was gone, and then a weakness came on him, and he leaned his head on my lap, desiring me to get something to stretch himself on, for that he could not go to Ennis. I said he must come, and was trying to bring him along with me. When we went a short distance, I asked a woman for milk. She said she had none but gave me a few halfpence. I then bought a halfpenny of bread, and my husband ate part of it. I afterwards got 1lb. of meal in the evening and made it ready for him at Corovoran. When did you purchase the bread? About 1 o’clock at Clouney. Did he complain during Friday night? He complained of weakness, and he was shivering. Did he complain of any pain? He did. Where? across his belly. Did he complain of cold? He did, and I put my cloak about him, where he was sitting, and the woman of the house put some bed clothes about him, in the latter part of the night. What time on Saturday did he leave that? When the Chapel bell was ringing, it was about half past 8 o’clock in the morning. Did he eat anything before he left that place? No sir. Where did he go? He went into Ennis; he said he should go to get himself warmed. How far was that from Ennis? Not half a mile. Did you go along with him? No, I went to the chapel, and told my husband that I would meet him at the courthouse after Mass. Why did you leave him to go into Ennis alone, when he was in such a weak state? Oh, I did not know, sir, that he was so far gone; if I had known it, I would have brought him to the priest. Did you meet him in Ennis? No, I was looking for him afterwards in the street, but could not find him; I heard afterwards that he had been called up to the Board, and I saw him about 2 o’clock outside the workhouse gate. Was it a frosty day? It was, and very cold; I asked him if he ate anything since, and he said nothing but a half-penny worth of bread. Had you eaten anything yourself that day? I had taken a halfpenny worth of gruel. I had the half-penny out of what the woman gave me on the previous day. Had your husband been before the Board at that time? He had sir, and he told me that two men had put him outside the gate. Was he able to walk at that time? He was not sir, he fell down in my presence. What did he say to you? I asked him what brought you there and why was he turned out, and he said that he could not get in until Harry Kitson gave him a ticket at Quin, on Monday. Did you remain at the workhouse gate? Yes, we waited all the day at the gate until it was getting dark. Did you see Harry Kitson, the relieving officer? No, I sent in one of the paupers who had charge of the gate for him, but I did not see him; when the pauper returned he told me that Kitson would be out shortly. When did this happen? With about half an hour of night fall. Do you know the name of the pauper you sent to inquire for Kitson? Yes, his name was Kearney. Did you hear any on inquiring for your husband during the time you were at the gate? I did not, and there was no one who inquired for him. Did you wait long at the gate after Kearney told you that Kitson would come out shortly? I remained about half an hour longer, till it was growing dark; and Kearney then assisted me to take my husband along the road, and after taking him a short distance, we left him at the side of a wall while I inquired in a house for lodgings. They would not let him in. Had you money to pay for lodging? Yes; when were going along the road, I met Mr. John O’Brien, one of the sons of Mr. O’Brien, the Master of the Workhouse, coming from Ennis, who asked me what ailed me, and I told him that I wanted to get lodging for my husband, and he gave me 4d. I then applied at another house for lodging but could not get it. I afterwards left my husband beside a wall, until I would run back to Corovoran, to try and get something for him, and when I returned he was just dying. How long might you have been away? I could not have been half an hour. Was your husband in any house at all during that day?—He was not. If any person had gone out to the gate to look for him, would they have found him? Oh, surely they would, for he was opposite the gate, and could not leave it. Did he ask any person coming out to do anything for him? Yes, when the relieving officer, John Brazil, came out—Oh John, said he, try and do something for me. I am sorry, Jack, said he, to see you in that state, but I can do nothing for you; you must apply to your own relieving officer. Did he apply to any other person? Yes, he spoke to Pat Corry, who is in the habit of carrying the books of Henry Kitson, the relieving officer, and Corry said to him—“One word is as good as twenty, you cannot get in until you got a ticket from Mr. Kitson on Monday at Quin”. Was it possible that Kitson might have gone out look for your husband, and not find him? Yes, after it was dark, but had he come out before it got dark, he must have found him. Did you apply to the relieving officer at any time for relief? Yes, I asked him on Monday, the day of the inquest, to do something for me; he asked me if I was willing to go into the workhouse? I said that I was ill at my heart, but that sure I must go in, if I did not get relief from him any other way. Did he then give you a ticket? He did not. Did he give you a ticket any time during that day? He did not. Did he on the next day? No. (KItson here denied that she had asked him for a ticket.) To Kitson—Oh you would not give it; and you knew my husband went to you often and you would not give him anything; and the death of my husband is upon you. (In reference to some questions asked by Mr. Michael Butler, the Master stated that the woman came to him on Monday evening after she had buried her husband, when he asked her if she had a ticket of admission; she replied that Kitson would not give her one. Mr. O’Brien then told her that he could not keep her in without a ticket, but gave her the price of her lodging.) When did you ask the relieving the officer again for a ticket? I went to him at Quin on the following Thursday, and asked him again to do something for me; he then said, come to Ennis on Saturday, and I will put you into the workhouse. I then asked him to give me a grain of meal for that day, and he said he would not. Did you come into Ennis on Saturday? I did, and came to the workhouse, but I did not see the relieving officer to get the ticket, and after I had been dressed in the pauper clothes, it was found that I had no ticket, and I was turned out again. The Chairman then inquired if she had now a ticket of admission? She said she had not. Mr. James O’Brien, the assistant master, observed that he had now procured a ticket for her from the relieving officer, and that she would be admitted.
Pat Kearney was next sworn. Examined by Mr. Briscoe—You are a pauper in the workhouse? I am. Do you recollect the day that Flanagan died? I do. Did you see him go out of the gate on that day? I did. Was he walking at the time? He was. Was he supported by any person? Yes, by an old grey-headed man; but I do not know who he was. Where did he go when he went out? He remained outside the gate. What time did this happen? About 3 o’clock. How long did he remain outside the gate? About two hours. Was his wife with him all the time? She was. Did they remain there until night? It was growing dark when they left the gate. Did you go along with him when he left the gate? I did, sir, because he asked me for God’s sake to take him by one arm and his wife by the other. (This witness that corroborated the evidence given by Flanagan’s wife, as to what afterwards transpired, and stated that he left him at the time that his wife went to Corovoran, and returned to the workhouse.) While Flanagan was at the workhouse gate, did his wife desire you to go in for the relieving officer? She did. Did you see him? No; I asked some of the relieving officers, who said that he was not there. Did you tell the woman when you returned, that he would soon be out? I did. Why did you say that? Because I thought Kitson was inside and that they were denying him to me. Did you hear Flanagan say anything at the gate? His wife asked him, when she saw him, what news he had, he replied, very bad news; what’s that? said she, O Kitson told me that I was a fine schemer. Did you hear him say anything about his having been ordered into the workhouse? No, sir.
Margaret Normoyle, a witness brought forward by the relieving officer, was next examined—Did you know the deceased John Flanigan? I did. Do you recollect his going into your shop to buy anything?—Yes, on the Thursday before his death he bought half an ounce of tobacco, for which he paid 3 halfpence. Had he any more money at that time? I cannot say. Did he smoke any of the tobacco then? He did. Did he every buy anything from you before? Yes, about a fortnight previous, he had bought some tobacco. Did you see him since Thursday until Saturday, the day on which he died? I did not.
John Brasil, another witness [note: different from Mr. John Brazil, the relieving officer who spoke to Anne Flanagan at the workhouse gate] brought forward by the relieving officer [Henry Kitson], was next examined—Did you know Flanagan? I knew him for the last 14 years. Did you see him on the day he died? Yes, I saw him coming to the workhouse. At what hour of the day was that? About 2 o’clock, he said he was afraid that the Quin district would be called by the Board, before he got to the workhouse, and requested me to say that he was present, if his name should be called. I did afterwards hear his name called in the Board Room, and I then stated that he was at the gate, and Sir L. O’Brien ordered him to be brought up. What state was he then in? He was in a miserable condition. Did you hear Kitson making any inquiry about him during the day? I did not. At the time you met him coming to the workhouse was any person with him? No, he walked along with me to the gate. Was he well able to walk? He was able to walk, but slowly. He appeared feeble.
Mr. John McMahon, one of the Guardians, was next examined at the request of Mr. [Patrick] Corbett—He said that he was present at the Board on the day that Flanagan was brought before it but he could not accurately recollect what order was given relative to him, but it was his impression that the man was to be kept in the hall until some endeavor was made to have him taken into the house.
Mr. [Patrick] Corbett, another member of the Guardians, was next examined—He saw John Flanagan brought into the room on a man’s back. Sir Lucius O’Brien was in the chair at the time, and when the man’s name was called it was stated that he was stretched outside unable to come in. The Chairman ordered him to be brought up, and called on the master if he had any vacancy in the Workhouse. The master replied he would make a place for him, and that he would take him down stairs and place him on a a seat in the hall, until he would get a place for him.
Mr. John Cotter, Clerk of the Union, was next examined—and stated that when the master came into the Board Room on Saturday the 12th he asked him if he had read to the Board the sealed order which had been sent to him (the master) limiting him to a certain number; he told him he had read it, and the master then stated that he was obliged to discharge a number of persons from the house to bring it down to the number specified, and that he wished to inform the Board that he could not give any more admissions; there were, however, several admissions made afterwards on that day. It occurred after Sir L. O’Brien had left, and while Mr. Knox was in the chair. While the Chairman was signing the report book of Brazil, one of the receiving officers, four orphans were brought in from that officer’s district. Mr. Knox then asked how could they think of sending those orphans out of the house that night. The master observed that he was prohibited by the sealed order of the Commissioners from admitting any into the house. Mr. Knox replied that he did not care, he would not have the death of those four orphans on him by turning them out on such a night. The master agreed in thinking they ought to be admitted, but suggested that Brazil should go down to the house, and select some paupers from his division that might be in a better condition to leave the house, and to whom he might give relief outside. Brazil did so, and in that way made room for the orphans. I was occupied writing (continued Mr. Cotter) when Flanagan was brought before the Board, but my attention was drawn to the case, in consequence of his having been brought into the Board Room on a man’s back, and I heard Kitson, the relieving officer, at the same time make the remark to him—“How well you were able to walk from Quin.” Sir Lucius O’Brien then asked the master if room could be made for him in the workhouse, but as well as I can remember, the relieving officer led the Board to think that the man could do without admission until Monday, and it was after that Mr. O’Brien said he would make room for him.
Mr. Daniel O’Connell, another of the Guardians, was next examined, and said—I distinctly remember Flanagan coming before the Board on the back of another man, and my attention was attracted by some person saying—“how lame you have got since morning”—or something to that effect. I observed Sir Lucius O’Brien looking towards the Master and saying—“something must be done for this man.” The Master rose, holding up the sealed order of the Commissioners in his hand, and said, “what will I do with this?” Sir Lucius, who was just preparing to vacate the chair, and did so a few minutes afterward, when Mr. Knox entered the room, made some remark to the Master, in the effect that he ought to try, but gave no decided instructions. I looked at the man when he was leaving the Board Room, and he appeared so feeble that I said to the pauper standing at the door, “help that man down stairs.” By Mr. O’Brien—Did you hear me promise the Chairman that I would admit the man? I did not. You appeared, in fact, to be in a dilemma on the occasion—on the one hand, not wishing decidedly to refuse Sir Lucius, and on the other, fearing to disobey the sealed order of the Commissioners.
Mr. O’Brien, the Master of the house, was then sworn, and made the following statement to the Board—I remember John Flanagan having been brought before the Board on Saturday the 12th, and heard Mr. Kitson observe, in reference to him, that was very lame on that day, but was not so lame when came to him at the depot in Quin. Kitson was then making some observation to Sir Lucius, the purport of which I did not hear, except the expression “he was in the workhouse.” I immediately stood up and asked Mr. Kitson what he meant? He replied that the at the time Flanagan and his wife left the workhouse, one of them went one way, and the other a different way. Sir Lucius then asked me across the table, had the man been in the workhouse—I replied that both of them had left it at their own request. I immediately showed the chairman the sealed order which I had received; and I have no recollection, nor did I hear Sir Lucius O’Brien order me to take him into the house; and positively, I did not promise to take him in. Mr. Kitson came around to me some time after, and asked me would he fill a ticket for a bad case below stairs? I then said, Mr. Kitson, I have told you and all the relieving officers today already, that a sealed order has arrived, and that I have no vacancy. He then went away, and from that time I heard nothing about Flanagan, nor was any application made to me about Flanagan, nor was any application made to me by any party to take him into the house, until it was told me about 6 o’clock in the evening that a man had died near the workhouse. Had the urgent nature of Flanagan’s case been represented to me, I would have felt it my duty to have able-bodied persons from the house to make room for him; or even had there been no Board sitting, I would have given 1s6d to some of the inmates of the house to get lodging outside, rather than refuse admission to a man whom I knew to be really starving.
Several of the Guardians here remarked that they had no doubt whatever of Mr. O’Brien’s humanity, and that they were well aware he had often given money out of his own pocket for the relief of urgent cases of distress.
Mr. O’Brien subsequently directed the attention of the Chairman to the evidence that Mr. Kitson had given at the inquest, and stated that though, in his evidence before the Board he said that he (Mr. O’Brien) had promised the Chairman he would admit Flanagan, yet he distinctly swore at the inquest that he did not hear the master make any such promise to the Chairman; and Mr. Whitestone, the coroner, if examined, would attest that such was Kitson’s evidence at the inquest.
Dr. Hehir was subsequently examined, and stated that he had performed a post mortem examination on the body; all the organs of deceased, were comparatively speaking, healthy; his liver was the only part which appeared affected, but he was laboring under no disease that could account for his sudden death, which appeared to have been caused by cold and destitution. In his stomach there was about a pint of something like radian meal and some particulars of bread. His lungs and his heart were healthy, and his frame did not appear very much emancipated.
The Board did not consider it necessary to take any further evidence on the subject, and a lengthened discussion then ensued as to whether they should come to some decision on the matter at once, or should refer the evidence to the Commissioners for their decision. It was ultimately agreed to come to some resolution on the subject before they separated.
Mr. Healy, Mr. O’Connell, Mr. Burke and several other members of the Board contended that no blame was attributable to any party, and the following resolutions was proposed by Mr. O’Connell, and seconded by Mr. Healy:—
The Chairman considered that such resolution was a most extraordinary one to adopt, after hearing the evidence which had been brought before them, and inquired if there was any member anxious to propose and amendment.That after hearing all the evidence the Board are of opinion that nothing has transpired to warrant them in attributing the death of John Flanagan to any willful or culpable neglect on the part of any of their officers.
Mr. Hugh Ross O’Loughlin in very forcible terms showed the ridiculous position in which the Board would be placed by adopting such a resolution. There could be no doubt from the evidence that the man’s death had been caused by neglect, and if such things could be allowed to happen without attributing blame to any party, there would be no security for the life of any pauper in the country. He had no doubt that the relieving officer had been guilty of neglect. It had been said that he acted according to his printed instructions; he did not believe that such was the case but if it were, he could only say that the blame should then be attributed to the Commissioners who had issued such instructions.
The Chairman denied that his instructions prevented him from attending to the man’s case after he had left the Board room.
Mr. Briscoe also observed that he had no such instructions.
Mr. Gibson and several other guardians thought that he was bound by his instructions not to interfere in the case further, after he had brought it before the Board.
Mr. O’Loghlen said it was his opinion, that the relieving officer had no instructions which would justify him in the course he had adopted; at the same time he did not conceive that he had willfully neglected his duty.
Mr. Molony also warmly commented on the neglect of which the relieving officer had evidently been guilty, and after some further discussion, Mr. O’Loghlen proposed the following amendment, which was seconded by Mr. Morony:—
A good deal of discussion ensued, and it being then after 8 o’clock in the evening, the number of guardians present were reduced to 13, beside the Chairman.That after full consideration of the evidence given before the Board on the cause of the death of John Flanagan, which took place outside the workhouse on Saturday, the 12th inst., we are unanimously of opinion that he died of destitution and cold, and that the relieving officer has been in some degree neglectful of his duty toward the deceased; but that no willful neglect is attributable to him, on account of his being under a false conception of having done his duty in accordance with his instructions, when be brought his case under the consideration of the Board.
We are also of opinion that no blame is or can be attached to the Master in this instance.
The Chairman having put the amendment, it was supported by Mr. O’Loghlen, Mr. Morony, Mr. Leary, and Mr. Considine [a total of four guardians].
The original resolution was supported by Mr. Gibson, Mr. Burke, Mr. Corbett, Mr. Silver, Mr. O’Connell, and Mr. Hartigan [a total of six guardians] which was consequently carried by the majority of 2.
Mr. Healy, Mr. McMahon, and Mr. Butler, declined voting on the occasion.
The Board then adjourned until next day.
Clare Journal and Ennis Advertiser, Thursday, 24 January 1850