Broken-down squireens and discontented agitators (1853-4)
I found the middle story when searching for ‘Glenturk’ — townlands on the shores of Lough Carrowmore where a branch of the McAndrew family apparently first moved when moving west to Erris in the late 1600s or early 1700s.
The newspaper reports summarise a number of court appearances by Robert Savage, High Constable of Erris. It’s a striking example of a clash between the old order — represented by ‘young’ Denis Bingham, Major Denis’ grandson, the major landowner in the district and a local magistrate — and an official of the modern state. Regarding the first story, note that Roger Dodwell was married to Letitia Fowler, a first cousin of Denis Bingham.
Saunders’ Newsletter, 11 March 1853, p. 3.
RECORD COURT. — MARCH 7.
(Before Mr Justice Torrens.)
Dodwell in replevin v. Savage
This was an action against the defendant as high constable of the barony of Erris, for illegally seizing a quantity of oats, barley and turf, the property of the defendant, for county cess. After a protracted trial, and contradictory evidence, his lordship in his charge to the jury designated it as a miserable and petty case, in which the plaintiff had really sustained no injury, as the goods had not been removed, and were abandoned in a few days after the seizure; that the utmost loss he could sustain was the price of the replevin bond.
The jury found for the plaintiff damages, £5.
Counsel for the plaintiff — Messrs. Bourke, QC, West, QC, and Jordan.
Counsel for the defendant — Messrs. Walker, QC, Atkinson, Buchanan, and O’Malley.
The Mayo Constitution, 15 March 1853, p. 3.
The following is a report of the very extraordinary and unfounded charge against Mr R. R. Savage.
In re R. R. Savage.
This was an application to the grand jury to dismiss Mr Savage from his office of high constable of the barony of Erris.
Mr Walter Bourke, Q.C., with Mr Jordan, appeared for the applicants, who were discontented cesspayers of the barony of Erris.
Mr Buchanan, with Mr C. O’Malley, appeared for Mr Savage.
Mr Ignatius Kelly appeared for cesspayers desirous of retaining the high constable in his office.
Mr W. Bourke, Q.C., said he appeared on behalf of his clients to ask the grand jury to dismiss Mr Savage from his situation. The first charge was for having issued receipts in a form different to that fixed by the grand jury. The next charge was for having charged cesspayers for notices served on them. The next charge was for having received grand jury cess for which he had never accounted with the treasurer; and the fourth was for holding land by himself and his son-in-law and returning it in arrear. Now he (Mr Bourke) submitted these were grave charges, and if proved as they would be, the grand jury should dismiss Mr Savage. He would now go into proofs.
Mr Jordan handed in several printed receipts which he offered to prove.
Mr Buchanan would save all that trouble, he admitted them.
Anthony Lavelle examined by Mr Jordan — Is a cesspayer; paid cess to Mr Savage; he charged him 6d for a notice that was served on him; saw him charge others also.
Cross-examined by Mr Buchanan — Lives ten miles from Mr Savage’s; the noce was served at his house by one Henaghan, the summons server; Henaghan is not in Mr Savage’s employment. Mr Michael Carey examined by Mr Jordan — Is a hotel keeper at Belmullet, and receiver over a property in Erris; saw a woman pay cess in Mr Savage’s office; she was charged 4d, and he gave her 2d more to pay for a notice served on him; saw others charged, but does not know their names.
Cross-examined by Mr C. O’Malley — These charges are brought forward by a committee; he is treasurer to the committee; some of the money collected was paid to him; has a conscientious objection to tell who paid him the money; if the foreman wishes he will tell; Mr D. O’Donnell have him £1.
Mr D. O’Donnell — I did not, I only gave 4s. 6d.
Cross-examination continued — Two priests gave him two shillings each, forgot his book at home and cannot give the names of the others.
Mr Ignatius Kelly then stood up to cross-examine Mr Carey.
Mr Jordan objected as Mr Savage had counsel.
Mr Ignatius Kelly insisted on his right, he appeared for persons who had paid their cess and one of whom stood beside him; his clients were no parties to the conspiracy got up against Mr Savage by broken down squireens and discontented agitators, who hated the high constable because he did his duty honestly. Mr Kelly in very warm language denounced the application as a mean, low, despicable attempt to have revenge of Mr Savage, because he exercised his right at the last election, and some of the parties behind the scenes might yet find themselves in the dock for this attempt to deprive an honest man of his situation. He held in his hand letters addressed to the foreman — one from the Rev. Mr Lees, the Rector of the parish in which Mr Savage resided, and he defied the other side to say that there was in Ireland a more exemplary clergyman — or a more respectable gentleman — a man who was an ornament to society –
Mr W. Bourke protested against Mr Kelly producing letters.
After much discussion, it being near 6 o’clock the argument was adjourned.
On Tuesday the case was resumed.
The foreman said they had evidence enough with reference to the two first charges.
Mr W. Bourke said they would now go to the two remaining ones.
Mr Jordan produced two lists of arrears, one a list headed in by the former high constable, Mr James Jackson, up to 1849, the other a list sent in by Mr Savage, for representment up to 1852, and he contended that both lists were for the same arrears, and as the sums in several townlands were nearly similar, he (Mr Jordan) would show by the production of receipts for money had out of these townlands between 1849 and 1852, that Mr Savage had the money in his pocket which he had returned in arrear.
Mr Buchanan would save trouble also; he would admit every one of their receipts, and one amongst them for £29, he was delighted to get hold of.
Foreman — Now for the 4th charge.
Mr W. Bourke said he would now prove that Mr Savage held lands which he had returned in arrear.
Mr D. O’Donnell, examined by Mr Bourke — Is a poor rate collector; knows the lands of Glenturkmore, and Glenturkbeg, and Shraigh; they are held by Mr Savage, and his son-in-law; they paid him poor rate for them.
Cross-examined by Mr C. O’Malley — He was Mr Savage’s opponent for the office of high constable, does not expect it now; of course would take it if offered to him; contributed to the fund; is a member of the committee.
Mr Jordan then referred to the list of arrears given in by Mr Savage, in which these lands were stated to be in arrear.
This closed the case for the applicants.
Mr Buchanan then addressed the grand jury for Mr Savage. He said when Mr Bourke had opened the case for the discontented cesspayers of Erris, of whom the conscientious Mr Carey was the representative, he supposed some fearful dereliction of duty, some gross fraud, something little short of wholesale plunder, would have been proved, but the entire resulted in the four ridiculous charges that had been put forward every one of which he (Mr Buchanan) would show were as groundless as they were malicious. Before doing so, he would go back to the election of Mr Savage. He had been chosen at a meeting where 14 magistrates attended, amongst them being the Marquis of Sligo, the Earl of Lucan, Sir R. L. Blosse, Sir Richard O’Donnell, &c., &c., and he was returned by 10 having voted for him and 4 for his rival, Mr O’Donnell, who is now amongst the discontented, conscientious cesspayers of Erris. Neither his friends nor his opponents at that election were disappointed in him. His friends believed he would do his duty honestly, and he had done so; his opponents feared he would spare no man, and he fully came up to their apprehensions. He had only entered on his duties when he was met by the fiercest opposition. He was processed fifty times at least into the civil bill court, but not a solitary decree did his opponents ever get. Determined to try their luck in a higher court, a person of the name of Monnelly took an action against him, and the record being tried here there was a verdict for Mr Savage. Once more at this assizes they tried their hands, and they were more fortunate, for a bailiff of Mr Savage’s having gone into a wrong field where Mr Savage had never ordered him to go, an action was brought against the high constable, and though the plaintiff only recovered the price of the stamp on the replevin bond £5, yet Mr Savage would have to pay the costs of the record, The grand jury would see from this the persecution to which he was subjected for endeavouring to do his duty. But this was not all. The vestry refused to applot the arrears, and it would be proved that Mr Denis Bingham, a magistrate of the county, had attended at the meeting and advised them not to applot the arrears, as until they were applotted they could not be collected. He (Mr B.) was not done with Mr Bingham yet. He would take these ridiculous charges in order — First, the issuing of receipts not according to form laid down last assizes by the grand jury. It appeared that Mr Savage desirous of having a record of his receipts, got them printed like a check-book a year before the grand jury thought of their books. He had these by him and while issuing the new receipts he filled 15 of his own form, which was almost word for word with the new ones; but on finding his mistake he sent out next day the proper receipts to exchange, but the parties refused to give them up; and they were now done with charge number one. With respect to number two, Mr Savage lived at Bangor, and need only hold an office there, but for public convenience he held a second office at Belmullet, ten miles from his house and further to save the conscientious non-paying cesspayers the expense of a distress, he sent the petty sessions summons server to the far end of the barony, often twenty miles, with notices, asking them to come in and pay. For this service he paid the men Henaghan, who were no bailiffs of his, and when persons came in who had given all this trouble, he asked them to pay the summons server, and sometimes they did give 2d, 4d, or 6d, and often they gave nothing; but it was not alleged that it ever went into Mr Savage’s pocket. So much for number two. Number three charge depended on two lists of arrears, and with all his (Mr B’s) respect for his learned friends, they must be either under a misconception or they wanted the grand jury to believe what was not correct. The first list was made by Mr Jackson of arrears up to summer assizes, 1850. Mr Savage came into office in November, 1850, and at summer assize, 1850, he made out a list of arrears. Now it was contended that in summer, 1852, Mr Savage merely copied Mr Jackson’s list of summer, 1850. This argument was a delusion on the face of it. His (Mr B’s) learned friends forgot or passed over the fact that two years had intervened between Mr Jackson’s list and Mr Savage’s, that in that time Mr Savage had got four different warrants on which four sets of arrears had accrued due, and the fat was that in making out his list Mr Savage had in each townland to give credit for any portion of Mr Jackson’s arrears he had received and add the arrears which had accrued due in his own two years, so that in many cases the arrears due in 1850 was still as great in 1852. But had the conscientious cesspayers proved that the amount of these half dozen receipts, the total £8 or £10, had not reached the treasurer, for that was not the main point? — They had not; but he (Mr B.) would prove they had. And now he came to the £29 receipt, and though he had an unpleasant duty to perform he would not shrink from it. What would the grand jury think of the entire case, when he told them that except £3, not one penny of the £29 ever entered Mr Savage’s pocket. It appeared that Mr Denis Bingham being in distressed circumstances, and his crops about to be seized for poor rates by the poor rate collector, went to Mr Savage and asked him to seize and sell a field of growing turnips, as he would rather Mr Savage had them than the poor rate collector. Mr Savage did so, and Mr Bingham got a Mr Lyons to buy them at auction for £29, and Mr Bingham, Mr Savage, and Mr Lyons went into Mr Bingham’s parlour to settle the matter, and Mr Lyons laid down the £29 on the table. The receipt now produced (a back of a letter) was written by Mr Savage, and he was about to take up the money when having got a hint coming in to take care what he was doing, he saw something in Mr Bingham’s countenance that reminded him he had acted illegally in selling a growing crop, and though Mr Bingham had consented he might get into trouble. He at once pushed over the £29 to Mr Bingham, and said he would have nothing to do with it, but if Mr Bingham would pay the current cess, £3, he would take it. This Mr Bingham did. Mr Savage walked out, leaving the receipt behind him on the table; and what could be thought of the case, when Mr Bingham has the hardihood to come forward with this receipt for which no money passed, and endeavour to dismiss the man he had failed to entrap. Mr Bingham was now in the room, and (Mr B.) dared him to come forward and deny a word of this shameful transaction. He (Mr B.) had now done with number three; but he was not done with Mr Denis Bingham, for he was the principal party in number four charge. Mr Savage took Glenturkmore from Mr Bingham in 1851, clear of all taxes, but he had hardly taken it when the poor rate collector seized for £10, and his cattle were hardly on again when Mr Denis Bingham, the landlord, actually made a distress for six years’ rent he alleged to be due, though he had set it to Mr Savage in 1851. This was no mere statement, he (Mr B.) held the notice of distress in his hand signed by Mr Bingham himself. It is true that, enraged at such base conduct, Mr Savage returned the land in arrear, intending to process Mr Bingham for the cess, but finding this would be throwing good money after bad, he paid up the entire cess. As to his son-in-law’s land it was utterly untrue that a shilling was due on it, and neither he nor his son-in-law owed one shilling of cess. One word more and he would have done with this disgraceful case. Had they dared to put forward one witness to say that Mr Savage had ever demanded cess (once paid) a second time? He never had, and if his learned friends had a witness to the fact, he (Mr B.) would stop the case that they might examine him. He would examine a few witnesses, and confidently leave the case to the grand jury.
Mr Savage examined by Mr Buchanan — He went through the entire case, and proved the transaction relative to the £29 with Mr Bingham as stated by counsel. — He proved that every shilling collected by him had been lodged with the treasurer, and that neither he nor his son-in-law owed a shilling of cess. Mr Savage was also examined by Mr Bourke, but nothing was elicited.
M. Singleton, Esq., RM, examined by Mr O’Malley — He had been sent by the government to aid Mr Savage; he did his duty very properly, and encountered a good deal of opposition.
James Caldwell examined by Mr Buchanan — Was at the vestry; heard Mr Bingham tell the people not to applot the arrears and they could not be recovered.
The case having closed,
Mr Jordan offered to produce Mr Denis Bingham, to show that the statement as to the £29 receipt was not correct, but the foreman said the grand jury had nothing to do with the private transactions of the parties.
The room having been cleared, the grand jury reappointed Mr savage, allowing him 1s. in the pound instead of 9d to cover his expenses, and declared the charges frivolous and vexatious.
The Mayo Constitution, 26 July 1853, p. 3.
Savage v. Bingham
This was an action of replevin, Mr Savage’s cattle having been distrained for the sum of £92 odd, by the defendant for head rent alleged to be due six years ago out of the lands of Glenturk and Ely [sic] in the half-barony of Erris.
The plaintiff’s case was that he had taken the lands from Mr Bingham at the yearly rent of £25, free from cess and poor rates, save and except the tenants’ proportion thereof; and that at the time the distress was made he had paid up his rent and £2 4s 6d over and above as would appear by his receipts.
Mr Walker addressed the court on behalf of his client; at the conclusion of which address Mr Denis Bingham was produced — he proved the several documents connected with the case, his knowledge of the locality and his having received rent out of these lands, and have passed receipts for them.
To Mr Walker — The late Major Denis Bingham was never married; he was my grandfather; his daughter was married to my father, who was the son of the the second brother of Denis Bingham; my mother was daughter of the first son, and it is through him I claim my title as heir of Henry Bingham, the father of the Major; the Major was the third son; I received no rents out of those lands since 1846; before I distrained the cattle, he sent me word that if I shot over the lands of Glenturk, he would break the gun on my head.
Mr T. Cormack examined — Knows the lands of Glenturk; held those lands in right of his father; at the time he held these lands he was in the habit of paying rent to Mr Carter, and afterwards to Major Bingham.
To Mr Atkinson — Never paid any rent for the lands of Glenturk after my brother’s death.
Mr Bingham, in reply to the Court, said he seized 35 head of cattle, and that the average value of them was £2 10s each. The rent due upon the lands at th time of the distress was £94 10s.
Mr Fitzgibbon closed his case, reading all the documents connected with it.
Robert Savage examined — Is plaintiff in this action, and High Constable for the barony of Erris; took the lands of Glenturk from Mr Bingham at the yearly rent of £25; there is a special agreement to that effect between us; it is on a stamp (hands in the agreement): saw Mr Bingham accept that proposal and affix his signature to it in the court house of Belmullet; was to get the lands free of all imcumbrances of rates and taxes up to that date.
Mr Fitzgibbon QC — My lord, that is nothing more than a mere agreement between landlord and tenant; it is neither a demise nor lease.
Witness to Mr Walker — I paid the taxes that were due upon the land at the time I got possession of it to the amount of £19 [?] 9s 1d, viz., poor taxes, £11 5s; and public cess, £8 4s 1d [?]; and I paid his proportion of rates and taxes along with my own up to the the time of the distress, amounting in all to £27 4s 6d; after the assizes [?] I went to Mr Bingham’s house immediately before the distress was made, and I explained to him why it was that I paid all these taxes; he then asked me for an advance of £25 [?] as he was then going to Dublin; I replied that I could not give him this money without consulting my family; I did not give it to him, and immediately after this refusal the distress was made; at the time the cattle were seized they were worth £3 [? or 5] a-head; there were thirty-five of them taken away and shut up in a close pound, where they were much injured; one of them had a horn knocked off, and when they were put on the grounds afterwards they were shivering with cold.
Cross-examined by Mr Fitzgibbon, QC — I had the cattle grazing on the lands before May, 1851; I had the grass taken from the receiver.
Mr Walker handed in a letter from Mr Bingham to Mr Savage, thanking him for his many recommendations to him, and stating at the same time that if it would be necessary for him to distrain the lands, he would take care that Mr Savage’s cattle should not be interfered with.
Michael Gallagher examined by Mr Atkinson — Was present when Mr Bingham accepted the agreement between him and Mr Savage; and, also, when Mr Bingham affixed his signature to it; he (Mr Bingham) said at the time that he was happy to have it in his power to give Mr Savage possession of the lands.
To Mr West — I will swear that it was not what he said that he would be happy to have Mr Savage for a tenant as soon as he should be able to purchase the tenant’s interest.
Mr Bingham was again questioned [?] by Mr Fitzgibbon, QC, and stated that he never asked Mr Savage for £25 under that agreement; he was [?illegible]treaty with the tenants about the possession of these lands; before any agreement was proposed, he told Savage that he would be happy to have him for a tenant as soon as he would succeed in getting up the tenant’s interest.
Dominick O’Donel, poor rate collector, proved that since 1850, Mr Savage was rated in the books of the union as occupier of the lands of Glenturk by his own desire.
Mr West having replied,
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff with £5 damages £2 4s 6d overpaid) and sixpence costs.
Counsel for plaintiff, R.C. Walker, QC, M. Atkinson, R. Buchanan, and C. O’Malley, I. Kelly, Solicitor. For the defendant G. Fitzgibbon, QC, H. West, QC, and Crampton.
The Mayo Constitution, 6 December 1853, p. 3.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS — NOV 13.
Robert R. Savage, plaintiff, Denis Bingham, defendant.
Mr Walker, QC, with whom was Mr Atkinson, appeared to shew cause against the conditional order obtained by the defendant to set aside the verdict had for the plaintiff at last assizes of this town before Chief Justice Lefroy. The action was one of replevin, and involved some nice questions of law. It appeared that the defendant set a portion of land, called Glenturk, to plaintiff, under a written proposal, and when plaintiff was only about 15 months in possession he was distrained for six year’s rent, alleged to be due under an old lease which defendant alleged was still inexistence for said land, when the jury found for the plaintiff that the agreement under which he took the lands was a valid one, and that he had his year’s rent paid.
Mr Fitzgibbon, QC, West, QC, and E. Jordan, were Counsel for the defendant.
The Court unanimously discharged the conditional order and allowed the cause shewn with costs, thereby confirming the verdict had for the plaintiff.
Counsel for the plaintiff — Messrs. Walker QC, and Atkinson — Attorney; Mr Ignatius Kelly.
Counsel for the defendant (given above) — Attorney Mr WT Kelly.
The Mayo Constitution, 3 October 1854, p. 2.
SHERIFF’S SALE
William Thomas Kelly, Plaintiff,
Denis Bingham, Defendant.
Ignatius Whitfield Kelly, Plaintiff,
Same, Defendant.
Robert R. Savage, Plaintiff,
Same, Defendant.
By virtue of Her Majesty’s Writs of Fieri Facias to me directed, I will, on WEDNESDAY next, the 4th OCTOBER inst.,
SELL BY PUBLIC AUCTION
the following Goods and Chattels, seized under said Writs:-
One Brood Mare.
One Three-year-old Horse.
One Mule.
One Bullock.
Two Heifer Calves.
One Two-year-old Heifer.
One Cow.
A quantity of Hay — about Twenty Tons.
A large quantity of Oats, Wheat, and Barley, cut and uncut.
About Five Acres of Potatoes and Five Acres of Turnips, and a Boat [?].
The Stock will be Sold at BELMULLET, and the Crops of the Lands.
CHARLES LYNCH, High Sheriff.
JOHN CASEY, Auctioneer, Castlebar.
Sept. 30, 1854.
The above Auction is hereby ADJOURNED to MONDAY, October 8, 1854.
CHARLES LYNCH
Besides his position as High Constable of Erris, Robert Rowland Savage was separately involved with setting up a fishery and selling cod liver oil, attempting to build a business in Bangor. Savage features briefly in Griffith’s Valuation, at that point holding 667 acres in Erris. He also let the shooting rights over his lands, reflecting the rise of country pursuits in the nineteenth century.
In 1854, his daughter Maria married Arthur Shaen Bingham, the son of Major Denis’ eldest son William. In 1860, he helped form a relief committee to relieve distress in Erris, part of a group of local ‘gentlemen’ and clergymen of both the Church of Ireland and Catholic Church. Robert Savage died in 1872, leaving less than £100: his career in Erris did not leave him rich.
