text: Page:Against profane dealing with holy matrimony.djvu/1

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text: Page:Against profane dealing with holy matrimony.djvu/44


text: Page:Against profane dealing with holy matrimony.djvu/41


text:
Page:A colonial autocracy, New South Wales under Governor Macquarie, 1810-1821.djvu/163

 for by the inefficiency of the overseers; who were usually convicts themselves and had little influence over the men. The overseers and men played into each other's hands, and the former were reluctant to report misconduct or neglect of work. It was also the unanimous opinion of the magistrates and landowners that "the convicts" did best at task-work as long as it was strictly measured. Druitt, the chief engineer, opposed such a system, giving as sufficient reason that if put to a task the men scamped the work, and that it was unfair to conscientious or slow workers. He pointed also to its failure when he did give it. But he really never allowed it a fair trial, for no man was permitted to leave the labour yard until the six o'clock bell whether his task were finished or not. Occasionally work had been allotted in weekly tasks, but in such a way that the men often finished on Wednesdays and spent the remainder of the week in idleness.

It was no wonder that the Government service became popular amongst all the prisoners except the good mechanics and that the landowners thoroughly disapproved of Macquarie's system. It was not merely their poverty which prevented them from taking men off the Government's hands. The disinclination of the men themselves to go into the settler's service, their consequent unwillingness to work, and the cost of their keep and wages, all constituted serious hindrances.

In 1804 a Colonial Regulation had decreed that every master to whom a servant was assigned must agree to feed and clothe him in a satisfactory manner and to give him ₤10 a year as wages. No agreement was drawn up, but by taking a convict servant a settler necessarily accepted the conditions. The rations were expected to be equal to those given by Government and the wages were in payment for work done after three o'clock. These regulations were republished by Macquarie in 1814 and in 1816 he ordered the wages to be paid, if the


text:
Page:Copy of Letter from Assistant Secretary, Department of Commerce and Labor, to Commissioner of Immigration, San... - NARA - 296031.jpg

 (COPY) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR Office of the Secretary Washington No. 13393-C December 13, 1904

Commissioner of Immigration, San Francisco, California.

Sir: Referring to your letter of the 14th instant, No. 1212-C, the Department returns herewith the record in the appealed case of Ju Toy, who arrived at your port October 24, 1904, as No. 36, ex Steamship "Doric," and was rejected by you on the 5th instant.

This appellant claims that he was born in San Francisco at 1031 Dupont Street, twenty-eight years ago; that in the 1st month of K.S. 8 (1882) - when he was about five years of age - his parents returned to China, leaving him in the custody of a man named Ju Sing Foon; and that the only two persons now residing in this country acquainted with the facts in this case are Ju Sing and Ju Fung. These two witnesses appeared in the appellant's behalf; and while their testimony is consistent in many respects, one of them insists that the place of appellant's birth and of his parents' residence was 1301 Dupont Street, and the other asserts that the latter's parents departed for China when he (witness) was about a year or two old and yet he remembers them, and that he was told about the date and place of appellant's birth during his acquaintance with him in early childhood and has remembered such facts ever since, without having to refer to any memoranda or being further advised regarding them.

In view of the foregoing and of the fact that it is not possible to substantiate the departure from this country of the alleged parents of the appellant, as claimed, the Department is constrained to hold that his birth in this country has not been satisfactorily established, and accordingly dismisses the appeal.

Respectfully, (signed) Lawrence C. Murray Assistant Secretary FPS

AWP. Inca. #13393/1.

Certified to be a true copy of the original filed in this office.


text:
Page:A colonial autocracy, New South Wales under Governor Macquarie, 1810-1821.djvu/164

 servants desired it, in money, but a deduction of £3, might be made for clothing.

The Order issued in 1814 discloses the difficulties of the small settlers with their Government men.

"It having come to the knowledge of the Governor," the Order runs, "that the practice of remunerating Government men for their extra time and labour either by permitting them to employ certain portions of their time for their own benefit, wherever they may choose to engage themselves, or to cultivate grain or rear pigs or other animals in lieu of giving them the wages prescribed by the established regulations of the Colony, his Excellency cannot avoid calling the attention of the public to the consideration of the ill consequences necessarily resulting from either the one commutation or the other. Those persons who have been in the habit of giving up portions of their time to their Government men, must be aware that they thereby enable idle and disorderly persons in the class of assigned convicts to pass into parts of the country where their persons are not known; whilst the latter, availing themselves of that circumstance, commit the most flagrant and atrocious acts under the idea that they will avoid detection.

"That robberies very frequently escape detection by the sudden retreat of the perpetrators from that part of the country where they committed their depredations, is too notorious to be controverted: This fact fully evinces the necessity for doing away the practice.

"Those Government men who have the indulgence of cultivating ground and rearing stock instead of receiving their prescribed wages, frequently become the receivers of stolen grain and provisions, which, being blended with that of their own rearing, baffles detection, and justice is thereby defeated.

"Settlers or others who do not require the entire services of the men assigned to them, or who cannot afford to pay them for their extra labour, are required to return them forthwith to the principal superintendent of convicts at Sydney, or to the magistrates of the district to which they respectively belong."

But the evil against which this Order was directed was the


text:
Page:A colonial autocracy, New South Wales under Governor Macquarie, 1810-1821.djvu/165

 result of collusion between master and man, and therefore one which was difficult to stamp out.

The payment of wages in money was very generally condemned by masters on the ground that their servants spent the money as soon as they could on liquor. The settlers preferred to pay the regulation wages and any extra remuneration in what was called "property"—that is, tea, sugar and tobacco. This was profitable to the master because the price of these goods was usually from 40 to 70 per cent. above ready-money wholesale cost, and 25 to 35 per cent. above the Sydney retail price. On the other hand the servant did in reality get more for his money in this way than if it went straight into the publican's pocket.

The servants of small settlers usually sat at their master's tables and shared their food. Their ordinary diet consisted of tea, sugar, bread and meat, and spirits as often as possible. The social position of the poor man's servant, who sometimes farmed a few acres of his master's land for himself and often married his master's daughter, was higher than that of the servants of wealthy settlers, but the latter were better fed. They received the Government rations with an additional 7 lb. of wheat, tea, sugar, milk and vegetables. Compared with the diet of the peasants and artisans of the United Kingdom they lived exceedingly well. Their clothing, however, was bad. In the Government service, owing to delays in sending slop-clothing, the men were often very ragged. It was costly to supply them with colonial-woven garments, and the Governor would not risk such an expense. Bigge, however, stoutly condemned this economy, saying that the convicts might have been justified in revolting, forced to go about, as they were, indecently clothed in rags.

The settlers' complaints of their servants were very numerous and of increasing frequency during Macquarie's governorship. In earlier days severe punishment for insubordination, and a more suitable class of field labourers, had largely accounted for


text:
Page:A colonial autocracy, New South Wales under Governor Macquarie, 1810-1821.djvu/166

 the smaller number of complaints. Cox described the convicts who arrived in 1819 as a quarter boys under twenty-one and more than half the remainder artisans, factory-hands or "forgers who were not used to any work at all". Riley also described the majority as being quite useless and not worth their keep to the settlers. The Governor by an Order in 1815 and another in 1818 tried to stifle the settlers' complaints and force them to keep whatever men were sent to them, but the Orders were never enforced. As the class of labourer deteriorated, their demands rose. Many indulgences which had previously been given as rewards of merit were now claimed as matters of right. Good and bad servants alike had to be paid the minimum wage of ₤10, and masters found themselves forced to offer more than that in order to secure good workmen. Some of the settlers, who had, or were supposed to have, influence with the Governor in gaining pardons for their men, had no difficulty in making them work, but others, although they treated them well, found them more insubordinate every year. Of these Macarthur was the most notable, and he gave a full account of his methods to Bigge. "My servants," he wrote, "are not often tasked, for they will not perform a task without continual reference to the magistrate to compel them by punishments, which I always very reluctantly do." The method I adopt is to find them well, clothe them comfortably, and give sometimes extra rewards. I cannot, however, boast of my success, for most of the farm servants are idle and neglectful, and the losses I sustain amongst my stock, in consequence of their carelessness, are alarmingly great. … I require my servants to work from sunrise to sunset, allowing them one hour for breakfast and another for dinner.

"Each man receives weekly 7lb. of beef or mutton and one


text:
Page talk:Dictionary of National Biography volume 08.djvu/380

The scanned text was interleaved. I replaced it with the text from: http://archive.org/stream/dictionaryofnati08stepuoft/dictionaryofnati08stepuoft_djvu.txt

-Arch dude (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 01.djvu/65

 public said this, but even physicians have been known to suggest it, and have indeed used the equivocal expression, the “apotheosis of surgery,” in connexion with the operative treatment of a serious abdominal lesion. But fortunately the public have found out that the surgeon, being an honest man, does not advise operation unless he believes that it is necessary or, at any rate, highly advisable. And this happy discovery has led to much more confidence being placed in his decision. It has truly been said that a surgeon is a physician who can operate, and the public have begun to realize the fact that it is useless to try to relieve an acute abdominal lesion by diet or drugs. Not many years ago cases of acute, obscure or chronic affections of the abdomen which were admitted into hospital were sent as a matter of course into the medical wards, and after the effect of drugs had been tried with expectancy and failure, the services of a surgeon were called in. In acute cases this delay spoilt all surgical chances, and the idea was more widely spread that surgery, after all, was a poor handmaid to medicine. But now things are different. Acute or obscure abdominal cases are promptly relegated to the surgical wards; the surgeon is at once sent for, and if operation is thought desirable it is performed without any delay. The public have found that the surgeon is not a reckless operator, but a man who can take a broad view of a case in all its bearings. And so it has come about that the results of operations upon the interior of the abdomen have been improving day by day. And doubtless they will continue to improve.

A great impetus was given to the surgery of wounded, mortified or diseased pieces of intestine by the introduction from Chicago of an ingenious contrivance named, after the inventor, Murphy’s button. This consists of a short nickel-plated tube in two pieces, which are rapidly secured in the divided ends of the bowel, and in such a manner that when the pieces are subsequently “married” the adjusted ends of the bowel are securely fixed together and the canal rendered practicable. In the course of time the button loosens itself into the interior of the bowel and comes away with the alvine evacuation. In many other cases the use of the button has proved convenient and successful, as in the establishment of a permanent communication between the stomach and the small intestine when the ordinary gateway between these parts of the alimentary canal is obstructed by an irremovable malignant growth; between two parts of the small intestine so that some obstruction may be passed; between small and large intestine. The operative procedure goes by the name of short-circuiting; it enables the contents of the bowel to get beyond an obstruction. In this way also a permanent working communication can be set up between the gall-bladder, or a dilated bile-duct, and the neighbouring small intestine—the last-named operation bears the precise but very clumsy name of choledocoduodenostomy. By the use of Murphy’s ingenious apparatus the communication of two parts can be secured in the shortest possible space of time, and this, in many of the cases in which it is resorted to, is of the greatest importance. But there is this against the method—that sometimes ulceration occurs around the rim of the metal button, whilst at others the loosened metal causes annoyance in its passage along the alimentary canal. Some surgeons therefore prefer to use a bobbin of decalcified bone or similar soft material, while others rely upon direct suturing of the parts. The last-named method is gradually increasing in popularity, and of course, when time and circumstances permit, it is the ideal method of treatment. The cause of death in the case of intestinal obstruction is usually due to the blood being poisoned by the absorption of the products of decomposition of the fluid contents of the bowel above the obstruction. It is now the custom, therefore, for the surgeon to complete his operation for the relief of obstruction by drawing out a loop of the distended bowel, incising and evacuating it, and then carefully suturing and returning it. The surgeon who first recognized the lethal effect of the absorption of this stagnant fluid—or, at any rate, who first suggested the proper method of treating it—was Lawson Tait of Birmingham, who on the occurrence of grave symptoms after operating on the abdomen gave small, repeated doses of Epsom salts to wash away the harmful liquids of the bowel and to enable it at the same time to empty itself of the gas, which, by distending the intestines, was interfering with respiration and circulation.

Amongst still more recent improvements in abdominal surgery may be mentioned the placing of the patient in the sitting position as soon as practicable after the operation, and the slow administration of a hot saline solution into the lower bowel, or, in the more desperate cases, of injecting pints of this “normal saline” fluid into the loose tissue of the armpit. Hot water thus administered or injected is quickly taken into the blood, increasing its volume, diluting its impurities and quenching the great thirst which is so marked a symptom in this condition.

Gunshot Wounds of the Abdomen.—If a revolver bullet passes through the abdomen, the coils of intestine are likely to be traversed by it in several places. If the bullet be small and, by chance, surgically clean, it is possible that the openings may tightly close up behind it so that no leakage takes place into the general peritoneal cavity. If increasing collapse suggests that serious bleeding is occurring within the abdomen, the cavity is opened forthwith and a thorough exploration made. When it is uncertain if the bowel has been traversed or not, it is well to wait before opening the abdomen, due preparation being made for performing that operation on the first appearance of symptoms indicative of perforation having occurred. Small perforating wounds of the bowel are treated by such suturing as the circumstances may suggest, the interior of the abdominal cavity being rendered as free from septic micro-organisms as possible. It is by the malign influence of such germs that a fatal issue is determined in the case of an abdominal wound, whether inflicted by firearms or by a pointed weapon. If aseptic procedure can be promptly resorted to and thoroughly carried out, abdominal wounds do well, but these essentials cannot be obtained upon the field of battle. When after an action wounded men come pouring into the field-hospital, the many cannot be kept waiting whilst preparations are being made for the thorough carrying out of a prolonged aseptic abdominal operation upon a solitary case. Experience in the South African war of 1899–1902 showed that Mauser bullets could pierce coils of intestine and leave the soldiers in such a condition that, if treated by mere “expectancy,” more than 50% recovered, whereas if operations were resorted to, fatal septic peritonitis was likely to ensue. In the close proximity of the fight, where time, assistants, pure water, towels, lotions and other necessaries for carrying out a thoroughly aseptic operation cannot be forthcoming, gunshot wounds of the abdomen had best not be interfered with.

Stabs of the abdomen are serious if they have penetrated the abdominal wall, as, at the time of injury, septic germs may have been introduced, or the bowel may have been wounded. In either case a fatal inflammation of the peritoneum may be set up. It is inadvisable to probe a wound in order to find out if the belly-cavity has been penetrated, as the probe itself might carry inwards septic germs. In case of doubt it is better to enlarge the wound in order to determine its depth, and to disinfect and close it if it be non-penetrating. If, however, the belly-cavity has been opened, the neighbouring pieces of bowel should be examined, cleansed and, if need be, sutured. Should there have been an escape of the contents of the bowel the “toilet of the peritoneum” would be duly made, and a drainage-tube would be left in. If the stab had injured a large blood-vessel either of the abdominal cavity, or of the liver or of some other organ, the bleeding would be arrested by ligature or suture, and the extravasated blood sponged out. Before the days of antiseptic surgery, and of exploratory abdominal operations, these cases were generally allowed to drift to almost certain death, unrecognized and almost untreated: at the present time a large number of them are saved.

Intussusception.—This is a terribly fatal disease of infants and children, in which a piece of bowel slips into, and is gripped by,

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 01.djvu/65


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 01.djvu/66

 the piece next below it. Formerly it was generally the custom to endeavour to reduce the invagination by passing air or water up the rectum under pressure—a speculative method of treatment which sometimes ended in a fatal rupture of the distended bowel, and often—one might almost say generally—failed to do what was expected of it. The teaching of modern surgery is that a small incision into the abdomen and a prompt withdrawal of the invaginated piece of bowel can be trusted to do all that, and more than, infection can effect, without blindly risking a rupture of the bowel. It is certain that when the surgeon is unable to unravel the bowel with his fingers gently applied to the parts themselves, no speculative distension of the bowel could have been effective. But the outlook in these distressing cases, even when the operation is promptly resorted to, is extremely grave, because of the intensity of the shock which the intussusception and resulting strangulation entail. Still, every operation gives them by far the best chance.

Cancer of the Intestine.—With the introduction of aseptic methods of operating, it has been found that the surgeon can reach the bowel through the peritoneum easily and safely. With the peritoneum opened, moreover, he can explore the diseased bowel and deal with it as circumstances suggest. If the cancerous mass is fairly movable the affected piece of bowel is excised and the cut ends are spliced together, and the continuity of the alimentary canal is permanently re-established. Thus in the case of cancer of the large intestine which is not too far advanced, the surgeon expects to be able not only to relieve the obstruction of the bowel, but actually to cure the patient of his disease. When the lowest part of the bowel was found to be occupied by a cancerous obstruction, the surgeon used formerly to secure an easy escape for the contents of the bowel by making an opening into the colon in the left loin. But in recent years this operation of lumbar colotomy has been almost entirely replaced by opening the colon in the left groin. This operation of inguinal colotomy is usually divided into two stages: a loop of the large intestine is first drawn out through the abdominal wound and secured by stitches, and a few days afterwards, when it is firmly glued in place by adhesive inflammation, it is cut across, so that subsequently the motions can no longer find their way into the bowel below the artificial anus. If at the first stage of the operation symptoms of obstruction are urgent, one of the ingenious glass tubes with a rubber conduit, which Mr F. T. Paul has invented, may be forthwith introduced into the distended bowel, so that the contents may be allowed to escape without fear of soiling the peritoneum or even the surface-wound.

ABDUCTION (Lat. abductio, abducere, to lead away), a law term denoting the forcible or fraudulent removal of a person, limited by custom to the case where a woman is the victim. In the case of men or children, it has been usual to substitute the term (q.v.). The old English laws against abduction, generally contemplating its object as the possession of an heiress and her fortune, have been repealed by the Offences against the Person Act 1861, which makes it felony for any one from motives of lucre to take away or detain against her will, with intent to marry or carnally know her, &c., any woman of any age who has any interest in any real or personal estate, or is an heiress presumptive, or co-heiress, or presumptive next of kin to any one having such an interest; or for any one to cause such a woman to be married or carnally known by any other person; or for any one with such intent to allure, take away, or detain any such woman under the age of twenty-one, out of the possession and against the will of her parents or guardians. By s. 54, forcible taking away or detention against her will of any woman of any age with like intent is felony. The same act makes abduction without even any such intent a misdemeanour, where an unmarried girl under the age of sixteen is unlawfully taken out of the possession and against the will of her parents or guardians. In such a case the girl’s consent is immaterial, nor is it a defence that the person charged reasonably believed that the girl was sixteen or over. The Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 made still more stringent provisions with reference to abduction by making the procuration or attempted procuration of any virtuous female under the age of twenty-one years a misdemeanour, as well as the abduction of any girl under eighteen years of age with the intent that she shall be carnally known, or the detaining of any female against her will on any premises, with intent to have, or that another person may have, carnal knowledge of her. In Scotland, where there is no statutory adjustment, abduction is similarly dealt with by practice. ABD-UL-AZIZ (1830–1876), sultan of Turkey, son of Sultan Mahmud II., was born on the 9th of February 1830, and succeeded his brother Abd-ul-Mejid in 1861. His personal interference in government affairs was not very marked, and extended to little more than taking astute advantage of the constant issue of State loans during his reign to acquire wealth, which was squandered in building useless palaces and in other futile ways: he is even said to have profited, by means of “bear” sales, from the default on the Turkish debt in 1875 and the consequent fall in prices. Another source of revenue was afforded by Ismail Pasha, the khedive of Egypt, who paid heavily in bakshish for the firman of 1866, by which the succession to the khedivate was made hereditary from father to son in direct line and in order of primogeniture, as well as for the subsequent firmans of 1867, 1869 and 1872 extending the khedive’s prerogatives. It is, however, only fair to add that the sultan was doubtless influenced by the desire to bring about a similar change in the succession to the Ottoman throne and to ensure the succession after him of his eldest son, Yussuf Izz-ed-din. Abd-ul-Aziz visited Europe in 1867, being the first Ottoman sultan to do so, and was made a Knight of the Garter by Queen Victoria. In 1869 he received the visits of the emperor of Austria, the Empress Eugenie and other foreign princes, on their way to the opening of the Suez Canal, and King Edward VII., while prince of Wales, twice visited Constantinople during his reign. The mis-government and financial straits of the country brought on the outbreak of Mussulman discontent and fanaticism which eventually culminated in the murder of two consuls at Salonica and in the “Bulgarian atrocities,” and cost Abd-ul-Aziz his throne. His deposition on the 30th of May 1876 was hailed with joy throughout Turkey; a fortnight later he was found dead in the palace where he was confined, and trustworthy medical evidence attributed his death to suicide. Seven children survived him: Prince Yussuf Izz-ed-din, born 1857; Princess Saliha, wife of Kurd Ismail Pasha; Princess Nazimé, wife of Khalid Pasha; Prince Abd-ul-Mejid, born 1869; Prince Seif-ed-din, born 1876; Princess Emine, wife of Mahommed Bey; Prince Shefket, born 1872, died 1899. ABD-UL-HAMID I. (1725–1789), sultan of Turkey, son of Ahmed III., succeeded his brother Mustafa III. in 1773. Long confinement in the palace aloof from state affairs had left him pious, God-fearing and pacific in disposition. At his accession the financial straits of the treasury were such that the usual donative could not be given to the janissaries. War was, however, forced on him, and less than a year after his accession the complete defeat of the Turks at Kozluja led to the treaty of Kuchuk Kainarji (21st July 1774), the most disastrous, especially in its after effects, that Turkey has ever been obliged to conclude. (See .) Slight successes in Syria and the Morea against rebellious outbreaks there could not compensate for the loss of the Crimea, which Russia soon showed that she meant to absorb entirely. In 1787 war was again declared against Russia, joined in the following year by Austria, Joseph II. being entirely won over to Catherine, whom he accompanied in her triumphal progress in the Crimea. Turkey held her own against the Austrians, but in 1788 Ochakov fell to the Russians. Four months later, on the 7th of April 1789, the sultan died, aged sixty-four. ABD-UL-HAMID II. (1842–), sultan of Turkey, son of Sultan Abd-ul-Mejid, was born on the 21st of September 1842, and succeeded to the throne on the deposition of his brother Murad V., on the 31st of August 1876. He accompanied his

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 01.djvu/66


text:
Page talk:Dictionary of National Biography volume 08.djvu/381

the scan ocr was poor. I replaced it with the text from
 * http://archive.org/stream/dictionaryofnati08stepuoft/dictionaryofnati08stepuoft_djvu.txt

-Arch dude (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


text:
Page:A colonial autocracy, New South Wales under Governor Macquarie, 1810-1821.djvu/167

 peck of wheat; in clothes, tea, sugar, tobacco and money to the value of £15 a year, unless they are idle and worthless, when I confine the allowance to £10, which is the rate of wages established by Government. To those who behave well I give gratuities varying from £1 to £5, but I regret to say this practice does not much swell the amount of my expenditure."

His house-servants he paid from £10 to £15, and that he was a good master is evinced by the fact that not one of his servants ever attempted to run away.

In addition to the convicts he employed some ticket-of-leave men and free labourers, whom he paid according to contracts made with each of them individually, and not in accordance with the scale of wages drawn up by the Governor in 1816. Cox, who had 120 convict servants as well as some who were not convicts, paid his ploughmen (convict or free) £10 to £15 a year, and his mechanics £15 to £25, but as he may have paid the whole amount in "property" it is difficult to draw any comparison between Macarthur's and his methods.

Such were the general conditions of the workmen in the settlement in 1821. There was practically no distinction between free and convict labourers. In Sydney the wealthy ticket-of-leave men, who had in many cases brought money


text:
Page:A colonial autocracy, New South Wales under Governor Macquarie, 1810-1821.djvu/168

 with them from England, insulted the eyes of the free with their lavish ostentation, their rings and chains and their dashing curricles. The old distance and respect were things of the past. The convict prisoner or ticket-of-leave man passed the civilian without salute—nay, he even took the inner side of the path. Labour was fast becoming an ordinary market commodity to be bought and paid for, instead of a debt due from the outcast to those within the ranks of respectability. Meanwhile as the economic power of the convict labourer increased, his social ostracism became yet more rigorous. An objection universally taken by the colonists to the convict system throughout this period was that large bodies of convicts were kept in Government service in the towns, and that by such an arrangement the object of their reform was lost. Macquarie himself felt the truth of this, but could see no alternative. Bigge collected the opinions of the magistrates and other leading settlers, who showed a quite remarkable agreement. They suggested the distribution of the convicts over the country and their employment in agriculture. All of them, they considered, would be fit, no matter what their previous lives had been, to clear the ground, grub up the stumps and burn off the wood. Thus employed they would have hard work for their bodies, be separated from bad associates, and enjoy time for reflection on past misdeeds. The difficulties of superintendence were admittedly great. Convict overseers were not approved of, some considering that the convicts gained great advantages simply from having "gentlemen" set over them. Macarthur said frankly that there never had been a good system of convict management and evidently thought there never would be. As he was himself a strong man with a gift for organisation, he favoured a system which gave more freedom to the employer.


text: Index:MALAYSIA BILL (Hansard, 26 Juli 1963).djvu


text:
Page:MALAYSIA BILL (Hansard, 26 Juli 1963).djvu/1

 Malaysia Bill


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Campbell, John (1696-1782)


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 42.djvu/174

 various Irish-American newspapers, but it is doubtful whether, as Mr. Webb states, he wrote articles for French journals. His articles were mostly political, and generally somewhat ponderous in style.

It is, however, as a man of action that O'Mahony is remembered. Through his whole life he showed little care for anything save the cause of his country, and as little for self as any man who has striven to serve Ireland. He was a repealer in O'Connell's time. But he had bolder aspirations than O'Connell and his immediate followers, and he acceded with the Young Irelanders in 1845. In 1848 he joined in Smith O'Brien's attempted insurrection [see ]. After its collapse at Ballingarry, co. Tipperary, O'Mahony, with John Savage, and others, maintained a sort of guerilla struggle on the borders of the counties of Waterford and Kilkenny. But he, too, had to succumb and fly to France, where he lived in Paris for several years in great poverty. In 1852 he left Paris for New York. There for several years, O'Mahony found it impossible to do anything effective in the way of organising resistance to the English government in Ireland. The Emmet Monument Association had been founded about 1854 by Michael Doheny, O'Mahony, and others, to carry on the struggle. but it failed to effect anything. Some time in 1858, however, an envoy was sent, from a committee in New York composed of O'Mahony and his friends, to James Stephens in Dublin, with proposals for the foundation of a. new secret organisation in Ireland, with the object of overthrowing the English rule and establishing an Irish republic. Stephens consented, under certain conditions, notably the sending over of definite sums of money at stated times. Thus originated what is commonly called the Fenian Brotherhood, a name, however, which was not used in America till some yearn afterwards, and was never home at all by the allied body in Ireland. The word seems an adaptation of the Irish ‘Fian Fianna' or 'Fianna Eirionn‘ (i.e. champions of Ireland). These terms were applied in Irish heroic tales to the members of certain septs who formed the militia of the ardring or king of Erin. (Fionn was the chief warrior in the Irish legends in which Oisin or Ossian [q. v.] figured.) In the ‘Fenian' movement O'Mahony played the greatest part next to that of Stephens. For several years the society languished for lack of funds, only about 800l. in all reaching Stephens up to 1883. Between that and 1855 some 8,000l. was event over to Ireland, and this was the period of the greatest. Fenian activity, Mr. Webb estimates the whole sum contributed to the Fenian exchequer by the United States and Canada. at 80,000l., but James Stephens sets it down as little over 40,000l.

During all these years O'Mahony worked persistently, though exposed to much opposition from many of his colleagues. In the later years of the movement, too, there was constant conflict of opinion between himself and Stephens. In the abortive attempt at insurrection in Ireland in 1867, the old Fenian movement, which Lord Kimberley listed in parliament to have been the most formidable effort since 1798 to sever the connection between England and Ireland, may he said to have come to an end, and with it the career of O'Mahony practically closed. The Fenian Brotherhood still dragged on a precarious existence. For several years O'Mahony remained head centre, but neither he nor it thenceforward had any appreciable influence on Irish or Irish-American politics. Throughout this period O'Mahony lived in great poverty, He died in New York on the 1877. His remains, which were brought back to Ireland, were followed to Glasnevin by a great concourse of people. O'Mahony was physically a very powerful and handsome man.

 O'MALLEY, GEORGE (d. 1848), major-general, was a volunteer in the Castlebar yeomanry when the town was attacked by the French under Humbert on 27 Aug. 1798, and was present when the place was attacked a fortnight later by a strong rebel force, which was defeated by the yeomanry and a company of Fraser fencibles. O'Malley was confirmed as a lieutenant in the Castlebar yeomanry by Lord Cornwallis in recognition of his services, and soon after joined the North Mayo militia, from which he brought volunteers to the 13th foot. He was appointed ensign on 23 Feb. 1800; served with the 13th at Ferrol and in Egypt, where he was severely wounded in the action of 13 March 1801, and afterwards at Malta and Gibraltar. For his success in recruiting in Ireland he received a company in the new second battalion 89th foot on 25 April 1805, and served with it until Colonel Henry Augustus (afterwards thirteenth Viscount) Dillon or Dillon-Lee [q. v.] raised the 101st foot, in which O'Malley was appointed major. By his activity and local connection in Mayo he assisted materially in forming the regiment. He served with it in Ireland and Jersey, and was despatched


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 01.djvu/67

 uncle Sultan Abd-ul-Aziz on his visit to England and France in 1867. At his accession spectators were struck by the fearless manner in which he rode, practically unattended, on his way to be girt with the sword of Eyub. He was supposed to be of liberal principles, and the more conservative of his subjects were for some years after his accession inclined to regard him with suspicion as a too ardent reformer. But the circumstances of the country at his accession were ill adapted for liberal developments. Default in the public funds and an empty treasury, the insurrection in Bosnia and the Herzegovina, the war with Servia and Montenegro, the feeling aroused throughout Europe by the methods adopted in stamping out the Bulgarian rebellion, all combined to prove to the new sultan that he could expect little aid from the Powers. But, still clinging to the groundless belief, for which British statesmen had, of late at least, afforded Turkey no justification, that Great Britain at all events would support him, he obstinately refused to give ear to the pressing requests of the Powers that the necessary reforms should be instituted. The international Conference which met at Constantinople towards the end of 1876 was, indeed, startled by the salvo of guns heralding the promulgation of a constitution, but the demands of the Conference were rejected, in spite of the solemn warnings addressed to the sultan by the Powers; Midhat Pasha, the author of the constitution, was exiled; and soon afterwards his work was suspended, though figuring to this day on the Statute-Book. Early in 1877 the disastrous war with Russia followed. The hard terms, embodied in the treaty of San Stefano, to which Abd-ul-Hamid was forced to consent, were to some extent amended at Berlin, thanks in the main to British diplomacy (see, History); but by this time the sultan had lost all confidence in England, and thought that he discerned in Germany, whose supremacy was evidenced in his eyes by her capital being selected as the meeting-place of the Congress, the future friend of Turkey. He hastened to employ Germans for the reorganization of his finances and his army, and set to work in the determination to maintain his empire in spite of the difficulties surrounding him, to resist the encroachments of foreigners, and to take gradually the reins of absolute power into his own hands, being animated by a profound distrust, not unmerited, of his ministers. Financial embarrassments forced him to consent to a foreign control over the Debt, and the decree of December 1881, whereby many of the revenues of the empire were handed over to the Public Debt Administration for the benefit of the bondholders, was a sacrifice of principle to which he could only have consented with the greatest reluctance. Trouble in Egypt, where a discredited khedive had to be deposed, trouble on the Greek frontier and in Montenegro, where the Powers were determined that the decisions of the Berlin Congress should be carried into effect, were more or less satisfactorily got over. In his attitude towards Arabi, the would-be saviour of Egypt, Abd-ul-Hamid showed less than his usual astuteness, and the resulting consolidation of England’s hold over the country contributed still further to his estrangement from Turkey’s old ally. The union in 1885 of Bulgaria with Eastern Rumelia, the severance of which had been the great triumph of the Berlin Congress, was another blow. Few people south of the Balkans dreamed that Bulgaria could be anything but a Russian province, and apprehension was entertained of the results of the union until it was seen that Russia really and entirely disapproved of it. Then the best was made of it, and for some years the sultan preserved towards Bulgaria an attitude skilfully calculated so as to avoid running counter either to Russian or to German wishes. Germany’s friendship was not entirely disinterested, and had to be fostered with a railway or loan concession from time to time, until in 1899 the great object aimed at, the Bagdad railway, was conceded. Meanwhile, aided by docile instruments, the sultan had succeeded in reducing his ministers to the position of secretaries, and in concentrating the whole administration of the country into his own hands at Yildiz. But internal dissension was not thereby lessened. Crete was constantly in turmoil, the Greeks were dissatisfied, and from about 1890 the Armenians began a violent agitation with a view to obtaining the reforms promised them at Berlin. Minor troubles had occurred in 1892 and 1893 at Marsovan and Tokat. In 1894 a more serious rebellion in the mountainous region of Sassun was ruthlessly stamped out; the Powers insistently demanded reforms, the eventual grant of which in the autumn of 1895 was the signal for a series of massacres, brought on in part by the injudicious and threatening acts of the victims, and extending over many months and throughout Asia Minor, as well as in the capital itself. The reforms became more or less a dead letter. Crete indeed profited by the grant of extended privileges, but these did not satisfy its turbulent population, and early in 1897 a Greek expedition sailed to unite the island to Greece. War followed, in which Turkey was easily successful and gained a small rectification of frontier; then a few months later Crete was taken over “en depôt” by the Four Powers—Germany and Austria not participating,—and Prince George of Greece was appointed their mandatory. In the next year the sultan received the visit of the German emperor and empress.

Abd-ul-Hamid had always resisted the pressure of the European Powers to the last moment, in order to seem to yield only to overwhelming force, while posing as the champion of Islam against aggressive Christendom. The Panislamic propaganda was encouraged; the privileges of foreigners in the Ottoman Empire—often an obstacle to government—were curtailed; the new railway to the Holy Places was pressed on, and emissaries were sent to distant countries preaching Islam and the caliph’s supremacy. This appeal to Moslem sentiment was, however, powerless against the disaffection due to perennial misgovernment. In Mesopotamia and Yemen disturbance was endemic; nearer home, a semblance of loyalty was maintained in the army and among the Mussulman population by a system of delation and espionage, and by wholesale arrests; while, obsessed by terror of assassination, the sultan withdrew himself into fortified seclusion in the palace of Yildiz.

The national humiliation of the situation in (q.v.), together with the resentment in the army against the palace spies and informers, at last brought matters to a crisis. The remarkable revolution associated with the names of Niazi Bey and Enver Bey, the young Turk leaders, and the Committee of Union and Progress is described elsewhere (see : History); here it must suffice to say that Abd-ul-Hamid, on learning of the threat of the Salonica troops to march on Constantinople (July 23), at once capitulated. On the 24th an iradé announced the restoration of the suspended constitution of 1875; next day, further iradés abolished espionage and the censorship, and ordered the release of political prisoners. On the 10th of December the sultan opened the Turkish parliament with a speech from the throne in which he said that the first parliament had been “temporarily dissolved until the education of the people had been brought to a sufficiently high level by the extension of instruction throughout the empire.”

The correct attitude of the sultan did not save him from the suspicion of intriguing with the powerful reactionary elements in the state, a suspicion confirmed by his attitude towards the counter-revolution of the 13th of April, when an insurrection of the soldiers and the Moslem populace of the capital overthrew the committee and the ministry. The committee, restored by the Salonica troops, now decided on Abd-ul-Hamid’s deposition, and on the 27th of April his brother Reshid Effendi was proclaimed sultan as Mahommed V. The ex-sultan was conveyed into dignified captivity at Salonica.

ABD-UL-MEJID (1823–1861), sultan of Turkey, was born on the 23rd of April 1823, and succeeded his father Mahmud II. on the 2nd of July 1839. Mahmud appears to have been unable to effect the reforms he desired in the mode of educating his children, so that his son received no better education than that given, according to use and wont, to Turkish princes in the harem. When Abd-ul-Mejid succeeded to the throne, the affairs of Turkey were in an extremely critical state. At the very time his father died, the news was on its way to Constantinople that the Turkish army had been signally defeated at Nezib by that of the rebel Egyptian viceroy, Mehemet Ali;

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 01.djvu/67


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Campbell, John (1705-1782)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Campbell, John (1753-1784)


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 01.djvu/68

 and the Turkish fleet was at the same time on its way to Alexandria, where it was handed over by its commander, Ahmed Pasha, to the same enemy, on the pretext that the young sultan’s advisers were sold to Russia. But through the intervention of the European Powers Mehemet Ali was obliged to come to terms, and the Ottoman empire was saved. (See .) In compliance with his father’s express instructions, Abd-ul-Mejid set at once about carrying out the reforms to which Mahmud had devoted himself. In November 1839 was proclaimed an edict, known as the Hatt-i-sherif of Gulhané, consolidating and enforcing these reforms, which was supplemented at the close of the Crimean war by a similar statute issued in February 1856. By these enactments it was provided that all classes of the sultan’s subjects should have security for their lives and property; that taxes should be fairly imposed and justice impartially administered; and that all should have full religious liberty and equal civil rights. The scheme met with keen opposition from the Mussulman governing classes and the ulema, or privileged religious teachers, and was but partially put in force, especially in the remoter parts of the empire; and more than one conspiracy was formed against the sultan’s life on account of it. Of the other measures of reform promoted by Abd-ul-Mejid the more important were—the reorganization of the army (1843–1844), the institution of a council of public instruction (1846), the abolition of an odious and unfairly imposed capitation tax, the repression of slave trading, and various provisions for the better administration of the public service and for the advancement of commerce. For the public history of his times—the disturbances and insurrections in different parts of his dominions throughout his reign, and the great war successfully carried on against Russia by Turkey, and by England, France and Sardinia, in the interest of Turkey (1853–1856)—see, and. When Kossuth and others sought refuge in Turkey, after the failure of the Hungarian rising in 1849, the sultan was called on by Austria and Russia to surrender them, but boldly and determinedly refused. It is to his credit, too, that he would not allow the conspirators against his own life to be put to death. He bore the character of being a kind and honourable man, if somewhat weak and easily led. Against this, however, must be set down his excessive extravagance, especially towards the end of his life. He died on the 25th of June 1861, and was succeeded by his brother, Abd-ul-Aziz, as the oldest survivor of the family of Osman. He left several sons, of whom two, Murad V. and Abd-ul-Hamid II., eventually succeeded to the throne. In his reign was begun the reckless system of foreign loans, carried to excess in the ensuing reign, and culminating in default, which led to the alienation of European sympathy from Turkey and, indirectly, to the dethronement and death of Abd-ul-Aziz.

ABDUR RAHMAN KHAN, amir of Afghanistan (c. 1844–1901), was the son of Afzul Khan, who was the eldest son of Dost Mahomed Khan, the famous amir, by whose success in war the Barakzai family established their dynasty in the rulership of Afghanistan. Before his death at Herat, 9th June 1863, Dost Mahomed had nominated as his successor Shere Ali, his third son, passing over the two elder brothers, Afzul Khan and Azim Khan; and at first the new amir was quietly recognized. But after a few months Afzul Khan raised an insurrection in the northern province, between the Hindu Kush mountains and the Oxus, where he had been governing when his father died; and then began a fierce contest for power among the sons of Dost Mahomed, which lasted for nearly five years. In this war, which resembles in character, and in its striking vicissitudes, the English War of the Roses at the end of the 15th century, Abdur Rahman soon became distinguished for ability and daring energy. Although his father, Afzul Khan, who had none of these qualities, came to terms with the Amir Shere Ali, the son’s behaviour in the northern province soon excited the amir’s suspicion, and Abdur Rahman, when he was summoned to Kabul, fled across the Oxus into Bokhara. Shere Ali threw Afzul Khan into prison, and a serious revolt followed in south Afghanistan; but the amir had scarcely suppressed it by winning a desperate battle, when Abdur Rahman’s reappearance in the north was a signal for a mutiny of the troops stationed in those parts and a gathering of armed bands to his standard. After some delay and desultory fighting, he and his uncle, Azim Khan, occupied Kabul (March 1866). The amir Shere Ali marched up against them from Kandahar; but in the battle that ensued at Sheikhabad on 10th May he was deserted by a large body of his troops, and after his signal defeat Abdur Rahman released his father, Afzul Khan, from prison in Ghazni, and installed him upon the throne as amir of Afghanistan. Notwithstanding the new amir’s incapacity, and some jealousy between the real leaders, Abdur Rahman and his uncle, they again routed Shere Ali’s forces, and occupied Kandahar in 1867; and when at the end of that year Afzul Khan died, Azim Khan succeeded to the rulership, with Abdur Rahman as his governor in the northern province. But towards the end of 1868 Shere Ali’s return, and a general rising in his favour, resulting in their defeat at Tinah Khan on the 3rd of January 1869, forced them both to seek refuge in Persia, whence Abdur Rahman proceeded afterwards to place himself under Russian protection at Samarkand. Azim died in Persia in October 1869.

This brief account of the conspicuous part taken by Abdur Rahman in an eventful war, at the beginning of which he was not more than twenty years old, has been given to show the rough school that brought out his qualities of resource and fortitude, and the political capacity needed for rulership in Afghanistan. He lived in exile for eleven years, until on the death, in 1879, of Shere Ali, who had retired from Kabul when the British armies entered Afghanistan, the Russian governor-general at Tashkent sent for Abdur Rahman, and pressed him to try his fortunes once more across the Oxus. In March 1880 a report reached India that he was in northern Afghanistan; and the governor-general, Lord Lytton, opened communications with him to the effect that the British government were prepared to withdraw their troops, and to recognize Abdur Rahman as amir of Afghanistan, with the exception of Kandahar and some districts adjacent. After some negotiations, an interview took place between him and Mr (afterwards Sir) Lepel Griffin, the diplomatic representative at Kabul of the Indian government, who described Abdur Rahman as a man of middle height, with an exceedingly intelligent face and frank and courteous manners, shrewd and able in conversation on the business in hand. At the durbar on the 22nd of July 1880, Abdur Rahman was officially recognized as amir, granted assistance in arms and money, and promised, in case of unprovoked foreign aggression, such further aid as might be necessary to repel it, provided that he followed British advice in regard to his external relations. The evacuation of Afghanistan was settled on the terms proposed, and in 1881 the British troops also made over Kandahar to the new amir; but Ayub Khan, one of Shere Ali’s sons, marched upon that city from Herat, defeated Abdur Rahman’s troops, and occupied the place in July. This serious reverse roused the amir, who had not at first displayed much activity. He led a force from Kabul, met Ayub’s army close to Kandahar, and the complete victory which he there won forced Ayub Khan to fly into Persia. From that time Abdur Rahman was fairly seated on the throne at Kabul, and in the course of the next few years he consolidated his dominion over all Afghanistan, suppressing insurrections by a sharp and relentless use of his despotic authority. Against the severity of his measures the powerful Ghilzai tribe revolted, and were crushed by the end of 1887. In that year Ayub Khan made a fruitless inroad from Persia; and in 1888 the amir’s cousin, Ishak Khan, rebelled against him in the north; but these two enterprises came to nothing.

In 1885, at the moment when (see ) the amir was in conference with the British viceroy, Lord Dufferin, in India, the news came of a collision between Russian and Afghan troops at Panjdeh, over a disputed point in the demarcation of the north-western frontier of Afghanistan. Abdur Rahman’s attitude at this critical juncture is a good example of his political sagacity. To one who had been a man of war from his youth up, who had won and lost many fights, the rout of a detachment

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 01.djvu/68


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 42.djvu/175

 with three hundred men to St. John's, New Brunswick, in 1808, when war with the United States was imminent, and the Americans were collecting a large force near that place. For his services in command of that garrison for eleven months, and the exemplary conduct of the troops under his command, he received the freedom of the city on 19 July 1809. As major, he afterwards commanded the regiment four years in Jamaica, obtaining the brevet rank of lieutenant-colonel 4 June 1813. The regiment was disbanded as the 100th in 1817. His repeated applications for employment in Europe were unsuccessful, but on 12 June 1815 he was appointed to the 2nd battalion 44th foot, and commanded it in Picton's division at Quatre Bras and Waterloo. On l5 June the battalion lost very heavily, being reduced to five officers and two hundred men. O'Malley was twice wounded and had two horses shot under him, but did not leave the field (C.B. and medal). He commanded the battalion in France until it was disbanded in 1816, when he was placed on half-nay. He was appointed major 38th foot on 12 Aug. 1819, and lieutenant-colonel 88th Connaught rangers on 2 June 1825. He commanded that corps, which he had in a fine state of discipline, until promoted major-general on 23 Nov. 1841. He died in London on 16 May 1843. A statue was erected to him at Castletown, Isle of Man.

 O'MALLEY, GRACE (1530?–1600?), Irish chieftain's wife, called in Irish writings Graine Ui Maille (ui being the feminine form of ua, grandson or descendant), and in the State Papers, Grany O'Mayle, Grainne O'Mailley, Grany Ne Male, Grany Ny Mayle, Ghrayn Ny Vayle and Grany Ne Malley, was daughter of Dubhdara O'Malley, chieftain of Umhaill Uachtrach Ui Mhaille, now the barony of Murrisk, co. Mayo, and of his wife Margaret, daughter of Conchobhar O'Malley, according to her own statement in state papers dated July 1593. She is often called in local traditions and songs Graine Mhaol. Maol, of which the nominative singular feminine after a noun is Mhaol, means cropped or docked, as in the well-known Irish tale, 'Eachtra agus im the act an mhadra mhaol' (‘The Adventures of the Dog with Docked Ears and Tail’), and hence tonsured, as in the name of an ecclesiastic of the eleventh century, Maolsuthain, translated by himself Calvus perennis. The incident or peculiarity which gave rise to the name in her case is not related in any of the numerous stories about her. The O'Malleys are one of the few clans of Ireland celebrated in the native histories as sea-rovers, and Graine's childhood was spent on the mainland of their country and among the islands of Inisbofin, Inisclerie, Inisturke, Inissearc, Inisdallduff, and Inisdevellan. She married, first, Domh-nall-an-choffaidh OTlaherty, son of Gilladubh O'Flaaerty, chieftain of Bailenaliinsi, co. Galway, called in the State Papers Ballynehenessy, and at the present day Ballinahinch. By him she had two sons, Eoghan, who married Catharine, daughter of Edmund Burke of Castle Barry, and Murchadh. Her husband was 'assured cousin in nine degrees' to the Sir Murrough ne doe O'Flaherty (called by the Irish, Murchadh na dtuagh, of the axes), whom Queen Elizabeth recognised as head of the O'Flaherties. She married, secondly, Richard Mac Oileverius Burke (called by the Irish, Risdeart an iarain, of the iron), who became Mac William Iochtar, or chief of the Burkes of Mayo, in 1582 (Annals of Loch Cé, ii. 453). By him she had one son, Theobald (called in Irish, Tibot na long, of the ships), who married Medhbh, daughter of O'Connor Sligo. She must also have had a daughter, if the statement in the state papers is correct that she was mother-in-law to Richard Burke. called by the English 'the Devil's Hook,' and in Irish, Deamhan an Chorrain, fiend of the sickle. She made many expeditions by sea, and was famous as a bold and active leader. In 1576, she, with her second husband, came to Sir Henry Sidney at Galway, and made alliance with him. He knighted Richard Burke, with whom he conversed in Latin, the only language, except Irish, which Burke knew. Her husband died before 1586 (State Papers). In 1577 she was captured by the Earl of Desmond, and brought to Dublin soon after 1 July 1678. She was released, and in October 1582 was suspected of plotting with the Earl of Thomond, Lord Birmingham, several Burkes, O'Madden, MacMorris, MacDavey, and Sir Murrough ne doe O'Flaherty. She was reported to think herself no small lady. At the end of the year (ib. 27 Jan. 1583), when Theobald Dillon came into her country, she swore to have his life for coming; but her husband quieted her. Both afterwards came to Sir Nicholas Malby [q. v.] to arrange not to pay 600l., arrears of taxes due to the government. Her husband being dead, she went to Carraicanchobhlaigh, her castle in Borrisowle, co. Mayo, with a thousand cows and mares, and in 1586 obtained letters of conduct from Sir Richard Bingham. He seized her, stating that she had plundered Aran Island, tied her with a rope, and built a gallows for her. She was


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 42.djvu/176

 let off on a pledge from the Devil's Hook, Richard Burke. When he rebelled, she fled to Ulster, and stayed with O'Neill and O'Donnell, being unable to return owing to loss of her ships. She received Queen Elizabeth's pardon through Sir John Perrot, and returned to Connaught. Sir Richard Bingham, who usually took an unfavourable view of the Irish, describes her, on 23 Aug. 1593, 'as a notable traitress and nurse of all rebellions in the province for forty years.' On 5 May 1595 she sent a petition to Burghley for the restoration of one-third of her husband's lands to her. She died in great poverty a few years later, and local tradition states that she is buried on Clare Island.

Numerous current stories of her adventures are unsupported by records. An old tune, known to all Irish fiddlers and pipers, is called after her, and is printed in Bunting's 'Ancient Music of Ireland.' In the south of Ireland it was regarded as a tune proper to the catholic interest, as is shown in Gerald Griffin's [q. v.] ballad, 'Orange and Green.'

O'MALLEY, THADEUS (1796–1877), political writer, born at Garryowen, near Limerick, in 1796, completed at the age of twenty-three his studies for the Roman catholic ministry. He obtained preferment in America; but, strong-willed and independent in spirit, he was in 1827 suspended by his ecclesiastical superior (Life of Bishop England). Returning to Dublin, he was attached to the cathedral in Marlborough Street, and officiated as an assistant priest under Archbishop [q. v.]

Dr. [q. v.], in opposition to O'Connell, had distinguished himself by his powerful advocacy of a legal provision for the Irish poor; and after the death of that prelate his mantle fell upon O'Malley, who, in a series of able public letters, resolutely demanded a poor law for Ireland. O'Malley also supported a system of national education, but was suspended by Dr. Murray because he addressed a very caustic letter to Archbishop MacHale in vindication of his own chief, whose public policy on the question of national education Dr. MacHale had severely impugned. After a short interval O'Malley was restored. To demonstrate his view on the subject, he published ‘A Sketch of the State of Popular Education in Holland, Prussia, Belgium, and France’ (2nd edition, 1840, 8vo). Subsequently he received from the government the appointment of rector of the catholic university of Malta; but having set on foot some reforms in discipline among the ecclesiastical students, he was rebuked and dismissed, O'Malley vainly urging that he ought not to yield to the behests of protestant laymen in matters wholly pertaining to his ecclesiastical functions. He returned to Dublin, and in 1845 started a newspaper entitled ‘The Social Economist,’ which soon fell into disfavour with the church in consequence of some articles deprecating the enforced celibacy of clerics. It was a vivacious periodical, one column of facetiæ being headed ‘Sips of Punch.’ Differing with O'Connell on the question of a complete repeal of the act of union, he urged the establishment of a federal parliament for Ireland, and the question was orally debated by both in public disputation; and in the end many former disciples of the Liberator flocked to O'Malley's standard. The priest followed up his advantage by starting a newspaper called ‘The Federalist,’ in which his opinions obtained eloquent advocacy. Soon after he engaged in an effort to unite Old and Young Ireland. The former, headed by O'Connell, advocated moral force; while Young Ireland favoured an appeal to arms, and seceded from O'Connell. For the next twenty years O'Malley remained in comparative retirement, living alone in a back lane of Dublin.

In 1870, when Isaac Butt, Q.C., inaugurated the home-rule movement, he found in O'Malley a zealous and energetic ally. The priest supported the new movement by voice and pen, and rejoiced to see his early opinions becoming more widely popular. It was at this time that O'Malley issued anonymously ‘Harmony in Religion,’ in which some alleged divergence of opinion between Cardinals Manning and Cullen was pointed out, and some modifications in ecclesiastical discipline boldly urged. Cardinal Cullen now ruled the see of Dublin, and O'Malley was once more visited with archiepiscopal displeasure. His last publication, ‘Home Rule on the Basis of Federalism’ (London, 1873, 16mo), went to a second edition, and, in a prefatory letter of fourteen pages, is inscribed ‘To the Irish Conservative Party.’ Though bold in urging changes of ecclesiastical discipline, O'Malley was unswerving on articles of faith. He died at his lodgings in Henrietta Street, Dublin, at the age of eighty-one, on 2 Jan. 1877, and was buried in Glasnevin cemetery.


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 42.djvu/192

  [q. v.] and his wife Caitriona, daughter of Ardghal MacMahon, and was twentieth in descent from [q. v.], king of Ireland. He was a young man in 1431, when he was taken prisoner by Neachtan O'Donnell, who released him as one of the conditions of a peace with Eoghan O'Neill. In 1435 Neachtan O'Donnell, in alliance with Brian óg O'Neill, decided to attack Eoghan O’Neill and his sons Enri and Eoghan óg. As soon as the news arrived, Eoghan, with Enri and his brother, marched into the heart of O'Donnell's country by the pass now known as the bridge of Duchary to the Rosses, the district between the Gweebara and Gweedore, co. Donegal, and there encamped. That a hostile army was able to live there shows that the district can hardly have been less productive then than it is now. O’Donnell attacked the O’Neills, drove them out, and occupied the camp. Enri O’Neill, after a short retreat, made a speech to his clansmen and to his gallowglasses, or hired men at arms, the MacDonnells, and again led them against the camp. He led the assault, and drove O`Donnell out. Mac Suibhne of Fanad, leader of the gallowglasses of O'Donne11, 'obstinately resisted MacDonnell, and seems to have led off his men in good order. He retreated eastwards, probably with the intention of marching north along the Foyle, and so reaching Fanad, but was overtaken near Slieve Truiin, co. Tyrone, by Enri O’Neill. In the action which ensued MacSuibhne was defeated and taken prisoner. Brian O'Neill tried to get into favour by giving up O'Donnell’s castle of Ballyshannon, and coming to O'Neill with his two sons. O’Neill cut off one foot and one hand from each, and one of the sons died at once. In 1439 he marched to Fortora on Lough Erne. and released the chief of the Maguires, who had been made a prisoner in his own castle by one of his vassals. With some English allies he again defeated Neachtan O'Donne1l in 1442, and obtained from him Castle Finn, co. Donegal, the territory of Cinel Moain, and the tribute of Inishowen. In the same year he fought for MacQuillin against Aedh liuidh O’Neill, and in 1444 sustained a severe defeat fighting with MacQuillin against O'Neill of Claneboy, co. Down, and had to give up his son Aedh as a hostage. He again helped MacQuillin in 1450, and in the same year his son Niall was slain while on a foray by his cousin Enri, great-grandson of Enri aimhreidh. He aided his father in 1452 in obtaining an eric from Maehlahon, who had slain Macllonnell, the chief of O'Neill's gallowglasses. Enri O'Neill had married the daughter of MacMurchadha, a stepsister of the Earl of Ormonde, but had for some time been living with the daughter of MacWilliam Burke, widow of Neachtan O’Donnell. The Earl of Ormonde marched against him, and compelled him to send away Baintreabhach O’Donnell, and to take back his lawful wife. He deposed his father, who was probably in a state of senile decay. in 1455, and was inaugurated O’Neill at Tallahoge, in the presence of the Archbishop of Armagh and of all the O'Neills. He went to war with the O'Donnells in 1456, and established Toirdhealbhach Cairbrech as their chief, with whom in 1458 he successfully plundered Lower Connaught and Breifne. In 1459 he tried, with English allies, to take the castle of Omagh from the Sliocht Airt Ui Neill, but failed, and made peace with them. The king of England sent him forty-eight yards of scarlet cloth, a chain of gold, and other presents in 1463, thus recognising him a chief king of the Irish. In 1464 he plundered and burned Donegal as far as Ballyshannon, and in 1467 ravaged Oireacht Ui Cathain or O’Cahan’s country, co. His alliance with MacQuillin still subsisted, and they invaded Clanebo in 1470, and captured the castle of Sgatliideirge on Sketrick Island in Strangford Lough. In 1471, after a siege of six months, he took the castle of Omagh, and later in the year plundered Tirbreasail, co. Donegal. Five years later he again attacked the O’Neills of Claneboy, and demolished their castle of Belfast. In 1479 and 1480 he plundered Donegal. These were his last expeditions, and in 1483 he had his son Con inaugurated chief of the Cinel Eoghain in his stead, and after six years of retirement died in 1489. The poet [q. v.], who also praised his enemy, Neachtan O’Donnell, praises him as chief king of the Irish in a poetical address of which there is a late copy in the British Museum (Edgerton MS. 111).

O'NEILL, HENRY (1800–1880), Irish archæologist, born at Dundalk in 1800, issued two works which are held in high estimation by Irish antiquaries. The first of these, entitled ‘The Most Interesting of the sculptured Crosses of Ancient Ireland, drawn to scale and lithographed by H. O'Neill,’ an imperial folio, containing thirty-six fine tinted lithographs with descriptive letterpress and an essay on ancient Irish art, was published by the author, London, 1857. It was followed by ‘The Fine Arts and Civilisation of


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 42.djvu/193

 Ancient Ireland, illustrated with chromo and other lithographs, and several woodcuts,' London, 1863. This ambitious work attempts to prove the existence of advanced civilisation in Ireland at a prehistoric period, and to refute the conclusions of Dr. George Petrie [q. v.] in his 'Ecclesiastical Architecture of Ireland' (1845). O'Neill maintained that the round towers were of pagan origin, but this view is now discredited ; nor have his other contentions borne the test of criticism as well as those which he attacked. He also wrote in 1808 a brochure claiming 'Ireland for the Irish 'and attacking 'landlordism.' His last production was a lithograph, with a careful description of the twelfth-century metal cross known as the 'Cross of Cong.' O'Neill died at 109 Lower Gardiner Street, Dublin, on 21 Dec. 1880, in the same year as his namesake the artist, Henry Nelson O'Neil [q. v.], leaving a family in straitened circumstances.

 O'NEILL, HUGH (d. 1230), lord of Cinel Eoghain, often called less accurately lord of Tyrone, was perhaps a son of the Aedh or Hugh O'Neill whom the 'Annals of Ulster' relate to have been slain in 1177. The younger Hugh O'Neill seems to have become chief of the Cinel Eoghain about 1197. In 1199, while John de Courci was plundering in Tyrone, Hugh went to some place near Larne, and was in the act of burning the town when the English took him by surprise. Hugh, however, defeated the English, and so forced De Courci to come back from Tyrone. Later in the same year O'Neill was engaged in warfare with the Cinel Connell and O'Heignigh the chief of Fermanagh, but in the end some sort of peace was made. In 1201 Hugh and O'Heignigh went to help Cathal O'Connor (1160?-1224) [q. v.] in Connaught against Cathal Carrach and William Burke [see under ]. They raided as far as Tebohine in co. Roscommon; but when Cathal Crobhderg wanted to proceed against Cathal Carrach and William Burke, the northern Irish refused, and turned homewards. Burke and Cathal Carrach pursued them, and overtook them near Ballysadare. At first the men of Connaught would not join battle, but eventually they defeated and slew O'Heignigh, and compelled Hugh to give hostages to Cathal Carrach. It was perhaps in consequence of this defeat that Hugh was deposed by the Cinel Eoghain in favour of a MacLochlainn. O'Neill, however, soon recovered his lordship; in 1207 Hugh de Lacy, earl of Ulster [q. v.], made a raid into Tyrone, but could exact no pledges from O'Neill. In 1209 Hugh O'Neill was plundering Inishowen, and had a great fight with the elder O'Donnel,but eventually the two made peace, and united against the English. In 1211 Hugh defeated the English at Narrow-Water in co. Down, and next year repulsed an invasion of Tyrone by John de Gray, and afterwards burnt the castle of Clones, which the justiciar had lately erected. In 1214 he defeated the English with great slaughter, and burnt Carlingford, and next year was again raiding in Ulster. In 1222 Hugh de Lacy returned to Ireland against the king^s consent, and, joining with Hugh O'Neill, destroyed the castle of Coleraine, and ravaged Meath and Leinster. O'Neill also supported De Lacy in his later warfare, which led to the despatch of William Marshal, second earl of Pembroke and Striguil [q. v.], to Ireland in 1224. In 1226 O'Neill went to the aid of the sons of Roderic O'Connor (1116-1198) [q. v.] against Hugh, son of Cathal O'Connor called Croibhdhearg [q.v.], and set up Turlough O'Connor, Roderic's third son, as prince of Connaught. O'Neill himself evaded the English, but Turlough was soon expelled and forced to take refuge in Tyrone, Hugh O'Neill died a natural death in 1230, though he was 'the person that it was least thought would find death otherwise than by the foreigners' (Annals of Ulster, ii. 285).

The Irish annalists speak of Hugh O'Neill with much exaggeration, as 'a king who had never rendered hostages, pledges, or tribute to English or Irish; who had gained victories over the English, and cut them off with great slaughter; who had never been expelled or exiled, and was the most hospitable and defensive that had come of the Irish for a long period' (Annals of Kilronan). The 'Annals of Loch Cé' call Hugh the 'most generous king and very best man that had come of the men of Erinn for a long time.' Hugh O'Neill is spoken of as 'worthy future arch-king of Ireland' (Annals of Ulter, ii. 285); and in a solitary reference to him in the English records, he is said to have styled himself king of all the Irish of Ireland (Calendar of Documents relating to Ireland, i. No. 1840). In the same place reference is made to his having been brought into the English king's peace.


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 42.djvu/195

 of all the lands contained in the patent granted by Henry VIII to his reputed grandfather Con. But the government thought enough had already been conceded to him, and he was obliged to accept a patent which practically confirmed the settlement arrived at by Perrot.

Returning to Ireland, Tyrone was soon involved in fresh disputes with Turlough and Sir Ros MacMahon. In March 1588 Perrot, who was beginning to lose confidence in his professions of loyalty, proclaimed a general hosting against him; but Tyrone at once submitted, went to Dublin, and put in two of his best pledges as guarantee to keep the peace. Commissioners Benyon and Merriman were sent to settle his differences with Turlough, but he resented their intrusion, and in April invaded Turlough's territory with a large army. He took Turlough by surprise, and harried his country up to the very walls of Strabane. But at Carricklea, on 1 May, he was utterly routed by the combined efforts of Turlough, Niall Garv O'Donnell [q. v.], and Hugh Mac Deaganach, and forced to seek safety in flight. The news of his defeat was received with great satisfaction in Dublin. ‘Nothing,’ according to Perrot, ‘had done so much good in the north these nine years.’ But it required something like a threat of instant war to compel him to desist from attempting to revenge his defeat by a fresh invasion. Later in the year Turlough took advantage of the proviso in his agreement to demand the restoration of his lands between the Mullaghcarne mountains and the Blackwater. The privy council were inclined to concede his demand; but Tyrone swore he would lose his life sooner than surrender them. Lord-deputy Fitzwilliam was afraid that Shane O'Neill's sons, who had found a patron in Turlough, and had a strong following in the country, would seize the opportunity to assert their claims. Turlough was consequently induced in May 1589 to waive his demand, and to consent to a renewal of the lease for the remaining four years at an increased rent of five hundred fat beeves.

The new arrangement was equally distasteful to Tyrone and to Turlough, and served to embitter still further the relations between them. Depredations occurred on both sides, and Tyrone complained that Turlough was instigating Shane's sons, Hugh Geimhleach and Con, to plunder him. Fitzwilliam, who went to Newry to inquire into the matter, thought that Turlough was the principal sufferer, but he agreed in laying the blame on Shane's sons. About the end of the year Tyrone bribed Hugh Maguire [q. v.] with some cattle and horses to surrender Hugh Geimhleach, and if he did not, as was asserted, hang Hugh with his own hands on a thorn tree, he procured a hangman from Cavan to execute him. Fitzwilliam was indignant, and summoned Tyrone to Dublin. But the earl merely said he thought he had done well to execute him, ‘being the son of a traitor and himself a traitor;’ and having given surety in 2,000l. to appear whenever he was wanted, he was allowed to return home. But he subsequently professed sorrow for what he had done; and Fitzwilliam, who was inclined to regard him with favour, gave him permission to go to England. On arriving at court in March 1590, he was for some time placed under restraint. But the deputy wrote eloquently in his behalf, urging that of his own knowledge the Pale had ‘felt great good and security in his neighbourhood,’ and that so long as Turlough lived he was not really dangerous, though ‘when he is absolute and hath no competitor, then he may show himself to be the man which now in his wisdom he hath reason to dissemble.’ He was accordingly ‘purged with mercy,’ and returned to Ireland on 20 Aug. For some time he caused the government little or no anxiety.

In January 1591 his wife, the daughter of O'Donnell, died, and Tyrone, who had been attracted by the personal charms of Mabel Bagenal, daughter of Sir Nicholas Bagenal, made overtures to her brother, Sir Henry, for an alliance with her. But Bagenal repulsed his overtures with contempt. Tyrone, however, found opportunities to speak with the young lady in private, and, having succeeded in winning her affections, persuaded her to elope with him ‘to an honest gentleman's house within a mile of Dublin … when I did not once touch her until I had sent to Dublin and had entreated the Bishop of Meath to marry us together in honest sort, which he did’ in August. The elopement caused a great sensation. Sir Henry refused to pay his sister's dowry, which henceforth became a principal grievance with Tyrone. According to a statement attributed to Tyrone himself (Trevelyan Papers, ii. 101), Mabel herself before long regretted her rashness, and ‘because I did affect two other gentlewomen, she grew in dislike with me, forsook me, and went unto her brother to complain upon me to the council of Ireland, and did exhibit articles against me.’ She died a year or two later, and so did not live to see her brother killed in battle by her husband. As for Tyrone, he declared that his chief object in marrying her was ‘to bring civility into my house and among the country people’—a specious plea,


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 42.djvu/196

 and likely to carry weight with the government.

In July 1592 Tyrone was instrumental in persuading Hugh Roe O'Donnell [q. v.] to go to Dundalk and submit to the deputy. But as the year drew to a close rumours of a disquieting nature reached Fitzwilliam's ears. Hitherto Tyrone's ambition had been limited to crushing his rival, Turlough Luineach, and asserting his supremacy as head of the O'Neills. Hostility towards Turlough rather than towards the government was the motive of his conduct. Afterwards, when he was seen to be aiming at the separation of Ireland from England, it became the fashion to ascribe to him a degree of astuteness and duplicity of which he was certainly innocent. Private ambition, the influence of Hugh Roe O'Donnell, and Spanish intrigues, rather than any statesmanlike interest in the welfare of his country or regard for the catholic religion, were at the bottom of his revolt. Cautious even to timidity, he resorted to a system of duplicity, to call it by no more offensive title, which, while it proved wholly ineffective, has served sufficiently to perplex his biographers, and to give rise to a view of his character which has no foundation in fact. In May 1593 he came to terms with Turlough Luineach, and the latter having resigned the chieftainship in his favour, he was inaugurated O'Neill. Something of what had happened reached the ears of the deputy, who, failing to inveigle him to Dublin, ordered him to repair to Dundalk on 20 June, ‘so that, under pretence of border causes, we might lay hold on him there.’ Tyrone obeyed the summons, expressed profound grief at having been falsely accused of disloyalty, and consented to concede a life interest in the district of Strabane to Turlough. He was allowed to return home, Fitzwilliam explaining that he had not sufficient ground to proceed against him on a charge of foreign conspiracy as directed in her majesty's letters.

It was deemed advisable to overlook his delinquencies, and to employ him to recover Hugh Maguire [q. v.], who in June had invaded Connaught and defeated the president, Sir Richard Bingham, at Tulsk, co. Roscommon. It was a hazardous proceeding if, as there were good grounds for believing, Maguire was only acting on secret instructions from Tyrone and O'Donnell. Tyrone readily undertook the task committed to him, but failed to induce Maguire to submit. Accordingly, in September 1593, Sir Henry Bagenal, with 143 horse and 208 foot, invaded Fermanagh from the side of Monaghan. At Enniskillen he was joined by Tyrone with two hundred horse and six hundred foot. On 10 Oct. they encountered Maguire at Belleek, and gained ‘a splendid victory’ over him. During the fight Tyrone was wounded in the leg, of which he did not fail to make the most; but it was noticed in his disparagement that he ‘made earnest motion to be gone the day before the conflict.’ He protested that Bagenal and Fitzwilliam had conspired to rob him of the honour that was due to him; but the impression that he had assisted unwillingly at Maguire's discomfiture was shared by the Irish (, Life of O'Donnell, p. 65). After the battle he retired to Dungannon, where he awaited the further development of events. In March 1594 Archbishop Loftus, Chief-justice Gardiner, and Sir Anthony St. Leger, being personæ gratæ, were sent to Dundalk to treat with him. Tyrone, after keeping the commissioners waiting some days, handed in a list of his grievances (Cal. Carew MSS. iii. 87), chiefly to the effect that Fitzwilliam and Bagenal were knit together to take his life and deprive him of all honour. Official opinion was divided, the commissioners suggesting the removal of Bagenal; Sir Richard Bingham and Solicitor-general Wilbraham urging that Tyrone's country should be shired and partitioned as Monaghan had been. Eventually, on 15 March, ‘a kind of truce’ was concluded, ‘to last till her majesty's pleasure touching the earl's griefs and petitions may be ascertained.’

On 11 Aug. Fitzwilliam surrendered the sword of state to Sir William Russell. A day or two later Tyrone, in fulfilment of a promise he had made to Ormonde, but to the evident astonishment of the council, appeared in Dublin, and, having deluded the deputy with the belief that he was the most loyal of subjects, was allowed to slip quietly away again. The deputy had soon good reason to regret his short-sighted leniency. Proof was forthcoming that he was secretly supporting Maguire, and had arrived at an understanding with Fiagh MacHugh O'Byrne [q. v.] Spanish gold was current in Tyrone, and rumours were rife of a Spanish invasion, supported from Scotland by the Earl of Huntly. The government deemed an immediate attack on Tyrone essential. Reinforcements under Sir John Norris [q. v.] were advertised as being on the way; but Tyrone had prior information, and struck the first blow by invading Louth, which he burned up to the very walls of Drogheda. When Norris landed at Waterford on 4 May 1595, the fort at the Blackwater had fallen into Tyrone's hands, and a day or two later Enniskillen was recaptured by Maguire. Before Norris could take the field, Sligo Castle


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 42.djvu/197

 had fallen, and its commander, George Bingham, been slain. On 24 June Tyrone was proclaimed a traitor in English and Irish at Dundalk. There was plenty of skirmishing and considerable loss of life; but Norris failed to bring him to an open engagement, and Cecil, who thought the situation dangerous, advised a compromise. ‘Her majesty,’ he wrote, ‘would be content to see what was in the traitor's heart, and what he would offer.’ But Tyrone insisted on a general pardon all round, and to this Norris refused to consent.

In the midst of the struggle old Turlough Luineach died, and Tyrone assumed the title, as he had for some time past possessed the authority, of O'Neill. ‘The coming to the place of O'Neill,’ wrote Norris, ‘hath made the rebel much prouder and harder to yield to his duty, and he flattereth himself much with the hope of foreign assistance.’ As if to confirm Norris's statement, letters were shortly afterwards intercepted from him and O'Donnell to Philip II and Don John d'Aquila, soliciting speedy assistance. But Tyrone protested that he had never corresponded with Spain before 20 Aug., which was probably true enough, and, the government being willing to accept his assurances, a truce was concluded on 2 Oct. for a week, but was subsequently extended to 1 Jan. 1596. Gardiner and Wallop were sent to Dundalk to come to some terms with him; but Elizabeth thought their language too subservient to him, and substituted Norris and Fenton. On 9 April Maguire, MacMahon, and O'Reilly submitted on their knees in the market-place of Dundalk. But Tyrone and O'Donnell refused to meet the commissioners anywhere except in the open fields, and, this being regarded as undignified, intermediaries were appointed. ‘Free liberty of conscience’ and local autonomy were the points chiefly insisted on. But there were explanations, and Elizabeth having professed herself satisfied, a hollow peace was signed on 24 April.

A day or two later a messenger arrived from Spain with a letter from Philip to Tyrone, encouraging him to persevere in his valiant defence of the catholic cause. There can be no question as to the nature of Tyrone's answer, for it is extant in the archives at Simancas, and has been published (, Life of O'Donnell, p. lxxviii). But to Norris Tyrone declared that he had told the Spaniard who brought the letter that he and O'Donnell had been received into the favour of their own princess, and therefore could not answer Philip's expectations. To put the matter at rest, he submitted Philip's letter to Russell's inspection. But in this he rather overshot his mark, for Russell retained the letter, and caused it to be transmitted to Philip, who was indignant at Tyrone's breach of faith. Tyrone excused himself by saying his secretary had run away with it.

For the next two years it is impossible to describe the relations between Tyrone and the government as those either of settled peace or open war. So far as Tyrone was concerned, it was, of course, to his interest to avoid coming to an open breach with the government until the arrival of Spanish assistance was assured. The unfriendly relations existing between Sir William Russell and Sir John Norris, and the obstinate blindness of the latter to Tyrone's real intentions, favoured his design. He manifested no eagerness to sue out his pardon, but when it arrived he received it, according to Fenton, ‘most dutifully, and, as a public token of his rejoicing, caused a great volley of shot to be discharged in his camp.’ He proffered his assistance to restore order in Connaught; but nothing came, as it was meant nothing should come, of his intervention. To everybody except Norris it was evident that he was merely spinning out the time. At the end of August 1596 two ‘barks of adviso’ were announced to have arrived at Killybegs, and Tyrone, O'Donnell, and O'Rourke at once posted thither. Letters addressed by them to the king of Spain, the infante, and Don John d'Aquila, calling for instant support, were betrayed by Tyrone's secretary, Nott, but it was some time, ‘owing to the handling of the matter by the Earl of Tyrone,’ before any absolute knowledge of the correspondence came into the possession of the government. After this, further dissimulation on his part might have seemed impossible. Nevertheless, he was highly indignant at what he called Russell's breach of faith in attacking his ally, Fiagh MacHugh O'Byrne, and threatened instant war unless the deputy desisted from his purpose. But Russell treated his threats with contempt, and Tyrone, after making a demonstration on the borders of the Pale and cutting off all supplies from the garrison at Armagh, abandoned his ally.

In January 1597 Norris moved down to Dundalk, and the earl, ‘contrary to the minds of his brethren and chief followers, who would have him still remain Irish,’ consented to parley. He could not deny having written letters to Spain, but he laid the blame partly on O'Donnell, partly on the government. He protested his loyalty with ‘oaths deep and vehement.’ But Norris doubted whether his words corresponded with ‘his heart or inward meaning,’ and refused to assure him of the queen's pardon, though agreeing to an-


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 42.djvu/199

 rival, seized the opportunity, with Tyrone's consent, to have himself proclaimed MacCarthy mor. The English planters fled without striking a blow, and the settlement on which English statesmen had set such store vanished like the unsubstantial fabric of a vision.

But Tyrone possessed few of those qualities, of which foresight and breadth of aim are not the least essential, that go to constitute generalship, and months of precious time were lost during which he might have made himself master of Ireland, and welded into one homogeneous mass all those scattered elements of hostility towards England, to which recent events had imparted extraordinary vigour. When Essex landed at Dublin on 15 April 1599, the situation, so far as Tyrone was concerned, was practically unaltered. Essex's plan of first securing the three provinces of Munster, Leinster, and Connaught, ‘that thereby the main action of Ulster may be proceeded with with less distraction,’ whether his or the council's, has been harshly criticised; but it was rather the manner of its execution than the plan itself that was mainly responsible for his failure. After a fruitless expedition into Munster, he returned to Dublin on 3 July with his forces ‘weary, sick, and incredibly diminished.’ The wisdom of postponing further operations for that year was manifest to every one on the spot. But towards the end of July letters arrived from Elizabeth with peremptory orders to attack Tyrone with all speed. Accordingly, on 28 Aug., Essex left Dublin with a wholly inadequate force of 2,500 men. As he approached the borders of Ulster there was some skirmishing between him and Tyrone's outposts, but nothing like a general engagement. Tyrone, according to his wont, made overtures for a parley, and on 7 Sept. he and Essex met at a ford on the river Lagan, identified as Anagh-clint. What passed at this meeting has been much disputed, for Tyrone, according to Essex, flatly refused to commit to writing the conditions on which he was willing to submit, and Essex, unwisely as the event proved, consented to humour him. There is an interesting account of the meeting in the ‘Trevelyan Papers’ (ii. 101–4), in which Essex is made to say ‘If I was sure you would not violate your oath and promise, as heretofore you have already done, I would be very well content to speak unto the Queen's majesty, my mistress, for you’ (cf. Addit. MS. 5495, f. 16). The gist of Tyrone's demands appears in a document called ‘Tyrone's Propositions,’ printed in Winwood's ‘Memorials’ (i. 119); but a fuller copy of the same, contained in a letter from Captain Warren, has been printed in Gilbert's ‘Account of the National Manuscripts of Ireland,’ p. 249. The suggestion of treason on Essex's part may be dismissed as mere calumny. It was surely enough to condemn him in Elizabeth's eyes that he had shown so little regard for the dignity of the crown by consenting to treat on equal terms ‘as best becomes soldiers’ with a proscribed traitor. Sussex and Sidney would have shown themselves much more sensitive in this respect. It was agreed that commissioners should be appointed to arrange the details of the pacification, and that in the meantime there should be a truce for six weeks to six weeks, until 1 May 1600, either side being at liberty to break it on giving fourteen days' notice.

On 8 Nov. Tyrone in a letter signed O'Neill—the style he now openly adopted—announced his intention not to renew the cessation, but in December he was induced by the Earl of Ormonde to consent to a truce for one month. The interval was employed in completing his preparations for an expedition into Munster. Letters, little less than regal in style, were sent to MacCarthy Muskerry, to Florence MacCarthy, to Lords Barry and Roche, the ‘White Knight,’ and the ‘Sugan Earl of Desmond,’ appointing a meeting at Holy Cross in Tipperary ‘to learn the intentions of the gentlemen of Munster with regard to the great question of the nation's liberty and religion.’ For the benefit of the catholics of the towns in Ireland a manifesto was drawn up and scattered broadcast, calling on them to join Tyrone's standard, and threatening punishment if they refused. For himself, he declared that he had only the interests of religion at heart, and protested ‘that if I had to be king of Ireland without having the catholic religion, I would not the same accept.’ Early in January 1600 he began his march southward. Proceeding slowly through the central districts, scrupulously observing his promise to plunder all those who refused to join his standard, he reached Holy Cross on the appointed day. Saluting with all reverence the sacred relic preserved there, he proceeded to Cashel, where he was joined by the ‘Sugan Earl.’ Passing the Blackwater on 18 Feb., he fixed his camp at Inniscarra, on the river Lee, where he received the homage of the principal magnates of the province, and caused Florence MacCarthy [q. v.] to be inaugurated MacCarthy Mor. He pillaged the country of Lord Barry, who defied him; but, on the whole, the expedition was a failure. His principal henchman, Hugh Maguire, lost his life in a skirmish with Sir Warham St. Leger on 1 March. The loss was irreparable, and Tyrone, hearing that Sir