Omey Island - 1879 - Catholics v. Protestants

The Riots at Connemara – The Times (London) – April 19, 1879

A row occurred in the schoolhouse at Omey Island between Mr. McNeice and the Reverend Mr. Rhatigan – The following is a summary of the appearance before the magistrates.

Constable Michael Murphy deposed that he was stationed at Cleggin on Sunday, the third of March with five men, and he went to Mass with three of them. The Rev. Mr. Rhatigan officiated, and before the service was concluded, he addressed the congregation: “I wish to give notice to anyone outside who wishes to take down my words and convey them to the magistrates, or whom they like—I mean the police. You are aware of what occurred at Omey Island on the 20^th of last month (March)—that I was near being murdered by six persons in the church at Omey Island.” He gave the names of McNeice and his wife, daughter, and son, and the teacher Davis, and a man named Coursey from Claddaghduff.

Mr. Rhatigan appeared somewhat agitated, and said that from the treatment he had received, he should not be surprised if the people tore down the church. He did not say what church; but he alluded to the church at Omey Island. He added that if such a thing occurred in Mayo or Tipperary, the people would not stand it, and that if the people were ever insulted by “jumpers” [Catholic converts to the Protestant faith] to resent it to the last. He then called on the people to attend to Clifden—if necessary, every man, woman, and child in the parish—and show that they were no cowards and loved their faith better than the world. He charged them [his parishioners] with being cowardly—so cowardly that one would imagine when they were talking to a magistrate or the police that they were actually standing on the Queen’s toes.

At the conclusion of the address, the congregation left the chapel and a portion of them congregated opposite the sacristy door. The prisoner Thomas Dogherty called for a cheer for Father Rhatigan. They were followed by Father Rhatigan to the road opposite the chapel where they stopped and they formed around him, consulted for some time, and he then returned to the sacristy room, the window of which commanded a view of the house of Patrick Coursey, who is known as a “jumper.” The people hooted for some minutes opposite the house and some of them took up stones and threw them at the house. Witness identified Martin Melia, Martin Coyne, Joseph Mangan, and John McDonagh as the stone-throwers. Thomas Clogherty, Thomas Melia, and Richard Davis, three other parties named in the summons, appeared to be leading the crowd. The windows were broken by Michael King, another of the parties. Witness arrested him, and an attempt was made after Mr. Rhatigan came, to rescue him. He refused to give his name, but Mr. Coursey came out and identified him. Witness told him to go home and throw no more stones, and Mr. Rhatigan replied that his people would not be dictated to by policemen or anyone else except himself. Witness then requested Father Rhatigan to tell the people not to throw stones and to go home. Father Rhatigan replied: “Again, policeman, my people will not be dictated to by you or anyone else save myself.” Five panes of glass and a window sash had then been broken. After the crowd separated, witness remained about the place for some time to protect the Courseys.

In cross-examination, Constable Murphy said: “…I am aware that after the 28^th of February, the windows of the church of Omey Island were broken. I never heard any persons complain that they had been insulted by the “jumpers.” Father Rhatigan said in the church, during the discourse, that there was no justice to be had from a Protestant magistrate, and that they had applied to the Government for a Catholic magistrate and been refused.

In reply to Mr. Armstrong, one of the magistrates, the witness said: “The term ‘jumper’ is a name of reproach to persons who change their religion from Catholics to Protestants.”

“What would they call a Protestant who becomes a Catholic?” – “A convert.”

Sub-constable Sheehan, who accompanied Murphy to chapel at Claddaghduff…said he went to the schoolhouse at Omey to look after some Roman Catholic children, and that he was called a blackguard by McNeice and that he was then attacked by McNeice and his family…

Stephen Coursey, a respectable working man, was the next witness. As he entered the box, there was some manifestation of ill-feeling in the gallery, but it was immediately suppressed. He deposed that he had formerly been a Roman Catholic, but he was now a Protestant. His house was not far from the chapel. On the 2^nd of March, a mob passed his house shouting and threw some stones into the kitchen. They went a short distance down the road, and he closed the door. They returned and threw more stones, which smashed five panes of glass and the window sash. He opened the door and saw Constable Murphy having the boy in custody, whom he now identified as the defendant Michael King. The witness identified two other defendants—John King and Festus King—as being there, but said they did nothing. He was not long out as there were some stone thrown and he had to go in.

The Rev. T. J. Flannery, C.C., was then examined for the defense. He stated in reply to Mr. Henderson that Jumperism was a system which induced a man, poor and starving, to sell his faith for a mess of pottage, with which he is provided and tempted by the Irish Church Mission agents. He knew Father Rhatigan, to whom the Government sent on the 4^th of April to ask him to use his influence to keep peace in the district. This evidence was disallowed.

At the inquiry on Thursday, the magistrates, after re-examining the police constables as to discrepancies in their evidence, decided that there was no legal evidence to connect the Rev. Mr. Rhatigan and the defendants, Festus King and John King, with the riot on the 2^nd of March, and the case against them was dismissed… The charge of riot against the Rev. Mr. Rhatigan and 12 others on the 4^th of March broke down and the summonses were withdrawn.

The Times (London) – May 20, 1879

Proselytism in Ireland – A Debate in the House of Commons

Mr. Macartney did not think this question actually bore on the case of riots. His question related to the conduct, which took place before and after the riots, of persons who were not engaged in the riots. He then asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether it was true, as stated in the Dublin Daily Express on April 21^st that on the 15^th of April, when 39 persons were summoned before the magistrates at Clifden, in the County of Galway, for riot and unlawful assembly near Omey Island, on the 2^nd, 4^th, and 23^rd of March, the fact was elicited, on cross-examination by Mr. Henderson, the priest’s solicitor, that the magistrates had actually asked the same Roman Catholic clergyman who was summoned for riot on March 2^nd to assist in preserving peace in the district on April 3^rd; whether it was true, as stated in the Dublin Evening Mail of the 18^th of April, that during the trial, Dean McManus, and several priests, sitting together below one of the jury benches, repeated in an audible tone the evidence to be taken down by the clerk; whether it was true that since the discharge of the persons accused of said riots and unlawful assemblies, the Protestant children attending the national schools in that neighborhood had been pelted with stones, and that Miss Walshe, the Irish Church Mission teacher at Errismore, was assaulted on her way home on the evening of the 1^st of May by a number of women with their faces covered, who were lying in wait for her, who seized her, tore her clothes, and cut her head, leaving her in a fainting condition; and whether any steps had been or are intended to be taken to prevent Her Majesty’s Protestant subjects in that part of Ireland from the persistent persecution to which for some time past they have been said and still are exposed.

Mr. Errington asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if…he would consider the justice of also protecting Her Majesty’s Catholic subjects in that part of Ireland from the provocation to which they have been long exposed from the proceedings of certain proselytizing societies, which wound the religious feelings of the population and tend to produce breaches of the peace.

Mr. O’Donnell also asked, with reference to the question of the hon. Member from Tyrone, whether the Government was aware that the so-called “Irish Church Missions to Roman Catholics” in the west of Ireland are conducted by means of the publishing of placards and the distribution of tracts in which Catholics are invited to become Christians, and the deepest convictions of a Catholic people are grossly insulted; whether his attention had been called to the conduct of the agents of these Missions, who, it is complained, thrust upon the Catholic peasantry statements that the sacrifice of the Mass is “a sacrilegious mummery,” the respect paid to Saints, “a blasphemous idolatry,” confession “a system of vice” and similar provocations; whether it had been brought to his notice that these agents are in the habit of seeking out needy peasant families and offering victuals and money as the price of conversion; and whether the Government would cause an investigation to be made, for the purpose of preventing conduct designed to provoke to breaches of the peace, although ostensibly pursued under cover of zeal for religion.

Mr. J. Lowther: “…With reference to the questions of the other hon. Members, I believe that in some instances placards of a very objectionable character (hear) have been made use of by some of the agents of the Church Missions, though I am glad to learn that this practice has been discountenanced by the responsible heads of the movement. Now, as to the course pursued by the Government, I must point out that we have no jurisdiction over what is termed proselytizing or the distribution of alms (victuals and money)…and, therefore, our duty is simply to put down disturbance by whatever party they may be created. With this object, a force of upwards of 100 constabulary was sent into the district and will be maintained there at the cost of the inhabitants so long as their presence may be necessary. Legal proceedings were instituted against the leading participators in these discreditable proceedings, and a similar course will be adopted against any persons who may be guilty of any attempt to disturb the public peace in future.”

Mr. Mitchell Henry, as one who lived in the immediate neighborhood of the district in question…“the events referred to occurred was one inhabited by some of the poorest of the population of Ireland, almost every one of whom were Roman Catholics, and the results of the systematic distribution of tracts among them was that, in consequence of the disturbances which arose, they were called upon to bear the expense of about 150 police. When the opportunity offered, he would ask the House whether it was right to impose such a charge on these unfortunate people…”

Mr. Macartney pointed out that whenever similar disturbances occurred in the north of Ireland and an extra force of constabulary were in consequence sent down to the district, the charge for it was levied on the county.

Major Noland spoke of it as being within his own knowledge that Roman Catholic children in Ireland were offered clothes and food—sometimes, he believed, money—if they changed their faith. That system of proselytism which he condemned as being extremely wrong, was the origin of disturbances which in themselves were very much to be regretted.

Mr. Sullivan said that if hon. Members would look at the Liverpool papers published about a year ago, they would find a letter from a Protestant English clergyman who, travelling in Ireland, had some circulars put into his hand which he described as an outrage on the religious convictions of the people.

Mr. O’Donnell thought the system referred to was most unworthy of the Protestants and one which demanded the serious attention of the Government.