Welcome to Down County Museum
The Gaol |
|
News |
|
Register with us |
|
Publications | Down Survey | 1998 Issue Contents Pictures
of the past: some Forde documents For many people, their visual impression of County Down during the rebellion of 1798 is conditioned by Thomas Robinson's great history painting 'The Battle of Ballynahinch' and their knowledge of it by the stirring accounts in W G Lyttle's book Betsy Gray or Hearts of Down. For those who want to take their interest further, Down is fortunate in having a good survival of contemporary documentation, seen most fully in the Downshire Papers in the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland. There are also a number of recently published books' which bring new scholarship to bear on this period, perhaps the most interesting in the county's long, varied and occasionally stormy history. However, whether we leaf the pages of books, dip into the archives or marvel at the detail in Robinson's painting, it would be foolhardy to think, as we paint our own mental picture of the rebellion, that it can be anything like complete. Robinson had the benefit of knowing many of those who fought at Ballynahinch. We do not have that advantage, and our knowledge is largely dependent on the chance survival of contemporary papers, through decade upon long decade of dusty summers and damp winters among the drumlins. Occasionally, and unfortunately all too rarely, previously undiscovered or unrecognised papers turn up and provide little fragments of detail to help us fill in the blanks. Even these can tell us little unless we know something of the background to the people mentioned and the incidents described. Sometimes, though, luck is on our side, and the new discovery fits into a known historical context, helping us interpret the documents and enrich our overall knowledge. Three such documents, from the Forde family of Seaforde House, have recently come to the attention of Down County Museum. Each has a story to tell in itself and each fits into the general story. All three are dramatic. One, if not actually blood-stained from the Battle of Ballynahinch, was written so close to the event that it reawakens the emotions of conflict: the conflicting emotions of triumph and fear. The description is so vivid that it seems to splash lurid primary colours across the Robinson painting, and make the combatants come to life and march off the canvass.
Before we can look at the detail in these dramatic documents, however, we need first to look at the background. The key figure, linking all three, is Mathew Forde of Seaforde. Simplistic interpretations of 1798 often see the conflict as being between the 'haves', the pro government forces of soldiers and generals, rich landowners and yeomanry corps composed of their tenants, and the 'have nots', the rebel army representing 'the people'. While it is not to be denied that many landowners fitted the Protestant Ascendancy archetype, traditional in outlook, conservative in attitude and deterniined to stamp out any challenge to their place in the county or their power in parliament, others, like Mathew Forde, were whigs, who were more 'liberal' in their stance. Although Forde raised his own yeomanry corps at Seaforde and Kilmore in opposition to the dual threat presented by the United Irishmen's plans for insurrection and France's determination to invade Ireland, he was actually a critic of the government's policy of refusing to consider demands for a reform of parliamentary representation during the war with France. Like many in the whig 'opposition', Forde believed that the threat of revolution in Ireland would ease if the government addressed some of the people's demands for change, rather than continuing to enact harsher and harsher legislation to keep a lid on discontent. As I have argued elsewhere,2 this did not go down too well in the narrow world of county electoral politics, which was dominated by the county governor, the arch conservative Marquis of Downshire. Although most of the 'liberal' gentry in the county refused to have anything to do with the yeomanry when it was first mooted by Lord Downshire in 1796, Forde was the first exception, applying to raise his corps in January 1797 shortly after Wolfe Tone and the French invasion fleet had almost got their feet on Irish soil at Bantry Bay. As the yeomanry was a government scheme Downshire could not stop liberals like Forde becoming involved but, as the leading conservative interest in county Down, he could do the next best thing: he could and did try to undermine him. As county governor, Downshire had the ear of the military commanders and was in an excellent position to attack both Forde and his 'patron' the Earl of Moira, whose estate was at Ballynahinch, by making it appear to the government that Forde's yeomen were disloyal. The first document represents the outcome of one of these campaigns of black propaganda. It reads as follows: Document 1 Dublin Sir, I have received the honour of your letter enclosing Resolutions entered into by the Seaforde & Kilmore Infantry, & the form of the oath which was taken by the officers & privates of these companies. Nothing certainly can be more satisfactory than they are or more honorable to themselves & the person who commands them. I am extremely happy to find that upon the
strict scrutiny that you have made into the principles & conduct
of these companies that so few appear to have taken the oath of
secrecy imposed by the United Irishmen. The information I had received
was general that several corps & amongst others those you command
had several persons serving in them who had taken these oaths; knowing
that many persons have taken these oaths from fear & consequently
that the oath would not influence their future conduct, I thought
that the most favorable opportunity for investigating the matter
would be the time of inspection & I therefore recommended to
General Lake to mention to each Captain at the time of inspection
the suspicion that had been entertained thereby that the captain
would not only have a better knowledge of the character of those
who compose his corps but that he would also adopt the most effectual
means of impressing those who have taken improper oaths: & I
have very great satisfaction in finding that in the instance of
your two companies my expectations have been so completely fullfilled,
for the investigation carried on by your authority has been compleat,
you have [ascertained?] the few who had taken the oaths, & proved
the loyalty of the Corps. I have the honour to be with great respect,
Sir The immediate context of this letter was the proclamation of martial law in May 1797, a measure designed to smash the United Irishmen by taking up their arms and terrifying them away from their revolution. This was abhorrent to reforming Whigs like Mathew Forde, who saw it as anti-constitutional and coercive. Forde, along with other similarly-minded gentlemen such as Gawen Hamilton of Killyleagh (father of the United Irishman Archibald Hamilton Rowan), Eldred Pottinger, John Crawford of Crawfordsburn, and Southwell Trotter of Downpatrick, held meetings and circulated petitions calling for reform as the surest means of stabilising the country, rather than tranquillising it at the point of a bayonet. The conservatives responded by shouting disloyalty. The Lord Chancellor, 'Black Jack' Fitzgibbon, otherwise Lord Clare, even claimed the reformers were in cahoots with the United Irishmen over the reform meetings, and that some of the names on the reform petitions had never appeared on any loyal addresses.3 By raising a yeomanry before this Forde had
publicly The first of our newly discovered documents, transcribed above, is Pelham's response. It shows that Pelham had received the resolutions and the information that very few of Forde's men had actually taken the United Irish 'Oath of Secrecy', which enabled people, rather than actively to join the United Irishmen, to give passive support by swearing not to act against them or give information to the authorities. It is notable that Pelham, who had to steer his security policy through the political and personal rivalries of the Irish gentry, bends backwards so as not to alienate Forde, by trying to represent the exercise in general rather than personal terms. Yet, as we have seen, Lake's accusation had been absolutely specific. Not satisfied with having embarrassed Forde, Downshire's vendetta continued right up to the rebellion itself. In May 1798, disconcerting noises were made in Dublin, through James Verner MP who complained that Forde 'ought to be materially interested in ... loyalty and lay aside that dangerous opposition to government and partiality for a reform which has been the ground work of sedition and rebellion'. On 30 May, General Nugent was proposing to disarm Forde's Kilmore yeomanry and to give their arms to a new corps raised by John Waring Maxwell of Finnebrogue, near Downpatrick.5 As rebel hands in Wexford had already 'set the heather blazing', such accusations of disloyalty added further to the powderkeg atmosphere in County Down, which exploded in the long hot days of the second week in June 1798. Part of the fallout from that explosion can be seen in our second and third documents.
Document 2
Although this document is undated, when we know the foregoing context, it can be confidently dated to the days immediately after the Battle of Ballynahinch. It is an affidavit and, as soldiers are involved, obviously relates to a military court martial. Knowing what we do about Mathew Forde's Kilmore and Seaforde yeomanry corps, a quick check of the Yeomanry List shows that the Lieutenant Browne, about whose conduct Sergeant Blackwood was testifying, was First Lieutenant Robert Browne of the Seaforde Yeoman Infantry.6 This knowledge puts the case in a different light. The Yeomanry Act specified that yeomen could only be tried a special yeomanry court martial, composed solely of yeomanry officers.7 When we realise that many of the other yeomanry corps in Down were either commanded directly by Lord Downshire or by men who supported him, for the unfortunate Browne, it was more than just a trumped up court-martial devised to provide political ammunition against his patron. Blackwood was clearly trying to fend off accusations of desertion so, for Browne, it was potentially much more serious. The yeomen at Ballynahinch, as elsewhere during the rebellion, were under what was known as 'permanent duty'. This meant, in effect, that they were under the provisions of the Mutiny Act, as though they were regular soldiers, and that they were liable to the same punishment for desertion. In short, Browne could have ended up like the rebel leader Hugh McCullough, hanging from the sails of Ballynahinch windmill. Blackwood's testimony is valuable in another respect: it gives additional circumstantial detail about the course of the battle itself. Clearly Blackwood's description refers to the closing stages of the battle. When he says that 'the rebels had been beat from the second hill at Ballynahinch' he means Montalto Hill. This part of the action is very graphically depicted in Robinson's painting. However, what is more intriguing is the question of the location of the first hill. Possibly Blackwood refers to Windmill Hill, where the rebel army had originally drawn itself up to face Nugent on the evening before the main battle but, as he seems to be referring solely to the action on the thirteenth of June, there is the possibility that they also occupied Church Hill, where St Patrick's Roman Catholic Church now stands. Indeed this is the hill depicted by Robinson as overlooking Montalto grounds, upon which General Nugent is brought the captured green colours of the fleeing rebel army.
Document 3 Sir, I am favoured with yours and am happy that
Mrs Forde is rather better. I hope by this time she is out of danger.
Your too last letters brought glorious news. Nothing particular
here. People all quiet. Killmore District and mine has brought in
several prisoners. The fate of .... is not yet known. A very extraordinary
matter happened me yesterday at Down. I was standing at Colen Stapelton's
door when Councer Hawthorn, Suthell Trotter Esqr, brought up a man
had been stricken for abusing one of the young company saying he
could beat him and all wd take his part There was another man with
very short hare came to spake for the man. The yeomen and I sayed
he was another Croppy or Damd Croppy. Trotter instantly replied
with a loud voice, You are a damd lyar. I asked him did he say that
to me. He answered he did. I was replying he was a damed insolent
fellow and at a proper time he should be answerable for his conduct
when the Generall Cry was Pull him down. One of our Seaford yeomen
who was at the market happened to be there was the first that caught
him by the breast. At one level this letter describes the aftermath of the rebellion in Down. The county is quiet but tense and the military are now preoccupied with the final stages of the mopping up, bringing prisoners in from outlying areas to Downpatrick Gaol. However, Browne's main concern is not to reassure Forde that the danger is over, but rather to seek his help in his ongoing personal danger. At another level, reading between the lines of Browne's account of his own volatile conduct at Downpatrick, it shows how people were affected by the tense and frightening atmosphere of the time. The implication of cowardice or disloyalty at Ballynahinch is the trigger for Browne's behaviour. Although Browne must have been cleared on the court martial charge, some mud must still have been sticking that July day in Downpatrick when fate provided him with a golden opportunity to clear his name. The full circumstances were as follows. On 6 July, a Downpatrick lawyer, Hawthorne, and a local magistrate, Southwell Trotter brought a prisoner with very short hair into town, who was boasting that he could beat any of the yeomen and clearly felt under Trotter's protection. Browne's explosive reaction, calling him 'a dam'd croppy', is readily understandable from his own circumstances. Trotter's reply, calling Browne a liar, sparked an assault by one of Browne's privates, a Seaforde yeoman called Armstrong, who grabbed Trotter and pulled off his coat. The upshot, Browne's threat that he was ready to answer any of Trotter's charges and that 'he [Trotter] should answer for his conduct another day' was, in the language of the day, little short of a euphemism for a challenge to a duel. Browne's eagerness for Forde's advice becomes clear when we remember that Southwell Trotter was one of those who, along with Forde, supported the 1797 reform petition. The documents transcribed here add to our canvass of historical knowledge of the period by revealing politically motivated disagreement amongst those nominally on the same side in 1798. However, historical significance aside, our natural curiosity is aroused by the personal portraits revealed in them. Did Browne fight his duel or did Forde eventually soothe and smooth the savage passions of the moment? Was the slur against Forde's corps cleared? We have seen how contemporary documents already in the public domain have provided the necessary context to understand this new material. Similarly when the new material is itself fitted to surviving documentation for the period after the rebellion some of these questions can be answered. We do not need to go too far after the Battle of Ballynahinch to find out about Matthew Forde's yeomanry. General Nugent's battle report to Lake noted, in a knowing post-script, 'bye the bye', the Kilmore Yeomanry behaved most gallantly'. He had good reason. One of the Kilmore men was killed, the only yeoman to die in the battle. This possibly explains why Forde's detractors tried to work their schemes through the attack on Lieutenant Browne of the Seaforde corps rather than the Kilmore. However, Browne had rather a 'good war' in 1798. 'The 1805 Yeomanry List shows that he survived both the insinuations of others and his own intemperance. On 3 November 1798 Browne was promoted to join his patron Mathew Forde, as joint captain of the Seaforde Yeomanry. On 17 November 1803 two more Brownes, James and John, perhaps Robert's sons or brothers, received lieutenancies in the Kilmore Yeomanry. We see that these three documents, which at first sight may appear confusing and which could easily be overlooked, actually prove to be small but important jigsaw pieces in the historical picture. Who knows how many other missing pieces, objects as well as papers, relating to other periods as well as 1798, have indeed been overlooked or are lying undiscovered in attics or outhouses. One very practical way of marking the bi-centenary of the rising in county Down would be don our oldest clothes and rummage through the dust and cobwebs of the neglected places where lie forgotten fragments of a past which belongs to us all. Allan Blackstock is a native of Ballynahinch and holds a PhD in history from Queen's University, Belfast; he is author of An Ascendancy Army, The Irish Yeomanry 1796-1834 (Dublin 1998). Acknowledgements References
|
|
|