Whether you are climbing your family tree or interested in social history, local place names or folklore we welcome you to Glenmore-History.com and hope that you enjoy your visit.

Unfortunately, our home internet failed six days ago as I was researching the cases below. (Yes, we are finally dumping Eir for what we hope is a more reliable service.) In any event, over the 70 years that our founder Danny Dowling (1927-2021) collected information on Glenmore he often copied non-Glenmore newspaper specific articles that caught his attention. The two articles below were in a file Danny marked “family relations.”

Corporal punishment was a fact of life in the 19^th century. Corporal punishment was practiced in public institutions such as prisons, schools, the workplace as well as in the home. The chastisement of wives has been widely discussed such as the “rule of thumb.” Husbands were allowed to “chastise” their wives with implements that did not exceed the circumference of the husband’s thumb.  Men were allowed to physically chastise their children, and it was common for daughters to be locked into rooms until such time as they agreed to marry a suitor chosen by their father. However, once a son or daughter married they were emancipated and the father’s duty to chastise ceased. The married daughter now was subject to “chastisement” from her husband. The emancipated son was a man in his own right and was no longer subject to corporal punishment by his father.

The cases below provide a glimpse into 19^th century family relationships. These cases were considered controversial at their respective times. Undoubtedly, these sensational cases were discussed across the country including in Glenmore.

Spencer v. Spenser & Spencer

 In 1828, the Southern Reporter and Cork Commercial Courier (Thur. 21 Feb. 1828) published an article entitled “Extraordinary Case.” John Spencer, a married man, charged his father Benjamin Spencer, and his step-mother, Catherine Spencer with imprisoning him in their home for three weeks and mal-treating him. Unfortunately, none of the ages of the parties was provided. John Spenser alleged that he was “manacled, fettered and chained down to a bed frame in a garret room without fire or bedding and with little more nutriment than potatoes and water…” He was “stripped of his small clothes, waist-coat, shoes and stockings—and received occasional floggings…”

The Witnesses

John Spenser’s wife stated that the day before the hearing she had taken her husband to Edward Butler, Esq. to show Mr. Butler the condition of her husband. Her husband had a manacle on each hand that were connected by a short chain. There were horse-locks on each ancle and a hook was on one of the horse-locks. A chain ran between the short wrist chain to the hook which kept her husband from standing up straight. She removed the chain from the hook. His hair “was cut closely off.” Although she knew that her husband was in his father’s house she did “venture to go and see him, for fear of ill-treatment to herself.” She learned of her husband’s condition from “old Spencer’s maid, Anne Condran.”

Mr. Edward Butler, Esq. stated that John Spencer “came to him yesterday morning, without any small-clothes, or stockings—that he wore a kind of woollen apron which descended to his knees—that he had all the irons described about him.” Mr. Butler went to the father’s house. The keys to the irons were provided. The irons on John Spencer were then removed and his vest and small clothes were returned to him. John Spencer was at liberty.

Ann Condran stated that she was a servant maid to Benjamin Spencer for the past three months. She saw Benjamin’s son John in a room above stairs—he had bolts his hands and feet, and was chained—he was tied to the bed with other chains. She stated that she thought that John Spenser was mischievous. He once broke a pane of glass in the parlour with his hand. While he was confined, she brought him potatoes and milk, sometimes stirabout, another time meat, and sometimes dry potatoes. She could not state who chained him but she knew his step-mother cut his hair to clean him. She repeatedly stated that the neighbours knew of his confinement perhaps to show that his parents did not think they were doing anything wrong, or perhaps to relieve any guilt she may have had for not informing John Spencer’s wife earlier regarding his mal-treatment.

According to Ann Condran John Spencer got loose himself and escaped from the window. She stated that without the restraints he would have beat and bruised everyone in the household, “and had ill used his father and mother. She noted that he was chained to a bed that had a mattress but no covering on it.  John Spencer was forced to eat with his handcuffs on for the entire three weeks. One time when his mother went to clean him John Spencer allegedly threw a hammer at her which was an extraordinary statement given his irons. Unfortunately, it was not reported how he obtained the hammer.

Mr. M’Dowell, governor of the gaol, testified that it is not usual in the gaol to keep the criminals hand-cuffed for three weeks. He stated that such a punishment was greater than what he used.  M‘Donnell said that when young Spencer escaped from his father’s home, his head and legs bore marks of violence. He had five plasters on his wounds, and his hair was cut close off.

John Spencer, was sworn and testified that he was confined against his will in his father’s home. He was told not to expect to escape until his father’s death. He described the irons that held him and stated that his mother beat him with lashes. His father did not strike him during the three weeks. For food, he only once got stirabout and milk and potatoes twice a day. He got meat once when his step-mother was absent from the home.  

John Spencer stated that he was chained to the bed and could lie on it but it did not have a stitch of covering on it. He asked for covering and it was refused. Once a “lock of straw was left in the room, he took it to lie on, under the bed, and his step-mother then took it away and used it in the shop under her feet.”

The Ruling

“Magistrates having investigated the case, consulted awhile. It was directed that Benjamin Spencer and his wife should be confined for trial Assizes, or find bail for appearance, two persons each in and themselves in £100. each. The husband subsequently, on giving the bail required for himself, was dismissed—but Catherine Spencer, in default of security was sent to prison.” In other words, Benjamin Spencer and his wife were to stand trial when the circuit judge next came to the area and could either await the judge in jail or pay £100 each as bail. Benjamin Spencer, the father, made bail for himself, but his wife was sent to prison to await the trial.

“A Melancholy Domestic Affair in Cashel,” O’Ryan v. O’Ryan

In 1847, during the Great Famine, a “family squabble” in Cashel appeared in newspapers across Ireland and in England. The victim Francis O’Ryan, Jr. was next of kin to the Right Hon. Richard Butler, Earl of Glengall, of the barony of Cahir (Liverpool Daily Post, 1 Sept 1858). The son was shot in the face by his father, Francis O’Ryan, Sr. It was initially thought that the son would die. At the time of the shooting the son was a couple of months from reaching his majority.

The Cork Examiner (Fri. 3 Sept. 1847) after noting that various versions “of the fearful affair in Cashel” appeared in various newspapers “after much deliberation” decided to publish an editorial written by the father from his prison cell to the Tipperary Vindicator. The Cork Examiner went to pains to state that it was “offering no opinion of our own, one way or the other, on this most unfortunate matter.”

Statement of Francis O’Ryan, Sr.

 TO THE EDITOR THE TIPPERARY VINDICATOR. Cashel, August 29, 1847- Sir–I beg to set you right relative to a statement of an occurrence that took place in Cashel, and was mentioned your paper of the 28th inst. It is not true that I had any argument or difference with my son in consequence of his refusing to join in making leases or lease. No such circumstance ever occurred. His signature or consent to any lease made or to be made by me is not requisite; neither will entitled any property from his coming of age, or in fact until after my death.

No, Sir, what led to the unfortunate occurrence was the infliction of the greatest wrong one person could do another. I am sorry be obliged to allude to it, but the letter in your paper of yesterday leaves me no alternative. I caught my son in bed with my wife—his step-mother. This, Sir, was what led to the unfortunate affair, and not the foolish and malicious statement furnished in your paper. I am ignorant as to who the writer of the article may be, or his intentions in furnishing you with a statement so totally at variance with truth; but his information is evidently derived from the poisoned source of malicious fool well known here.

I beg also to state, that am not, nor never was, in the habit of carrying fire arms about me; neither am I, or was I, in dread of thieves. I fear more the villain who attacks character through the instrumentality of wanton and malicious lies. His remarks about my mental illness etc., are not worth answering. Requesting a place in your paper for this note, I am, Sir, your obedient servant, Francis O’Ryan.

Readers may wonder why the father would make such a statement to a newspaper. During the 19^th century defendants could not testify in their own defence. By getting his version of events out into the public the father hoped to influence potential jurors. If the son had died the father would have faced murder charges, and if convicted he would have hanged. By making this public statement the father was putting forth a provocation defence which if successful would have reduced a conviction to manslaughter. Luckily, for him his son did not die.

Statement of Francis O’Ryan, Jr.

After the ball was removed from Francis O’Ryan Jr.’s head he too wrote a letter to the editor disputing what his father said occurred before the shooting.

The Tipperary Vindicator (Wed. 15 Sept. I847) published the following letter to the editor dated 9 September 1847.  

Sir—Now that my medical advisers say I may use so much exertion, after life being despaired of, I hasten to reply to letter my unfortunate father, dated 29th August last (which I am much surprised you inserted in your columns), containing most diabolical charge against me-a charge deeply affecting my character, and impeaching the reputation and fidelity of an innocent woman.

More particularly when his letter was written in prison, where had been committed on a charge the most serious and aggravated, from which he would of necessity exonerate himself whether right or wrong. I totally and distinctly deny his statements; they are at utter variance with truth. I positively assert that I never did, in thought or deed, commit any act that could justify him in such cruel and un-parental violence as he has resorted to. On the night of the melancholy occurrence I repaired to bed about ten o’clock, labouring under intense agony from tooth-ache and swollen jaw, which I have been long time subject. About twelve o’clock Mrs. O’Ryan, her way to procure a drink for one of her children, having heard me complain, came into my room (which is quite near my father’s) and asked me if she would send for anything to allay the pain, when my father, armed with pistols, rushed into the room, drove Mrs. O Ryan out, left the room, and locked the door on the outside.

I got out of my room, and in some time after proceeded to the door of that in which he was, asked him for the key, and the reason for acting as he had done, when he deliberately fired a pistol at me, inflicting a most dangerous wound. His statement that he had no argument with relation to joining him in leases, also untrue, as he did ask me to a short time since, for the purpose of enabling him to raise money for his own purposes, which I refused. Ever since he has been most violent in his conduct and treatment towards me.

A statement which appeared in some papers written by a newly acquired friend of my father’s (who gave the Limerick folk reason to think of him), that he (my father) was recently married, and other insinuations reflecting on me, is equally false, as my father married nine years since, and has got two children by said marriage. I could adduce many and strange circumstances to convince the most incredulous of the motives which actuated him to commit this awful crime, but as the matter must undergo legal investigation at the proper time, I trust the Press in general will, in justice to me, insert this letter, as they have published that of my unfortunate parent, and refrain from publishing any further comments on this very deplorable subject. I am, your very obedient, Francis O’Ryan, Jun.

Junior was referencing some statements that appeared in various newspapers including the Sun (London) (Tues. 31 Aug. 1847).  “Mr. O’Ryan having been for some time a widower, recently married a young and interesting lady, who, according to the version of the story on the father’s side, become an object of the son’s passion. That this sentiment was reciprocated by the youth’s stepmother, the father had, as is stated, for some short time back, more and more reason to be suspicious; and on Tuesday evening on entering his bedroom was horrified to beheld his place occupied by his unfortunate son. Maddened with rage, the unhappy father reached a loaded pistol, and fired… The lady made a precipitate retreat, and escaped before her infuriated husband could reload his weapon. An instant alarm was given and Mr. Ryan was taken into custody, and consigned to the gaol at Cashel.”

Before the internet crashed, we were able to learn that Junior went to Australia and returned to Ireland in 1858 to claim a title. At that time it was noted that his father was deceased (Liverpool Daily Post, 1 Sept. 1858). As time permits and the internet is restored we shall update these cases.

Please send any corrections or additional information to glenmore.history@gmail.com and we shall acknowledge and reply as quickly as we are able.

Dr. Kathleen Moore Walsh

Special thanks to Nial and Maeve C. for allowing us to “borrow” their internet to post this.