1881 Mar 12 Cullyhanna Land League article

 

 

 

 

THE CULLYHANNA LAND LEAGUE MEETING.

To the Editor of the Newry Reporter.

 

Dear Sir -- I hope to be able to find room in your valuable journal for the enclosed correspondence, which has already appeared in the Manchester Courier.

 

As Coroner Peel[1] has thought it proper to raise the question in English paper, to my mind it seems right that it should also get some local circulation. -- yours very truly,

 

Edward Markey[2],

Secretary of the Cullyhanna and Newtownhamilton Land League.

Newtownhamilton, 10th March, 1881.

Rusholme, Manchester,

_____________________________________________

19 February, 1881.

 

REV. AND DEAR SIR, -- I herewith enclose a cutting from the Tory organ of this city -- the Manchester Courier -- which you will see deals with the Cullyhanna meeting.

 

The mention of my name in the letter has brought down a shower of abuse on my head, with which I will not trouble you, and my only object in mentioning it is to say that in a letter I have today addressed to the Courier on the subject, I have added that the chairman of the meeting, being a resident of County Armagh, is better able to deal with the question of whether the Orangemen are joining the League or not than I am as a stranger, and therefore that I have sent him a copy of Mr. Peel's letter.

 

Referring to the question of the different religions joining the League, I may mention that the Rev. Harold Rylett[3], who delivered such an excellent speech at Portaferry on the same day as a meeting at Cullyhanna, is one of our body -- i.e., Unitarian.

 

With warmest personal compliments and best wishes for the success of your legitimate agitation, believe me to be, very faithfully yours,

 

John Pollitt[4].

To Rev. John Quinn[5], C.C., Cullyhanna.

 

To the editor of the Manchester Courier.

Sir, -- An unknown but kind friend sent me a copy of half your valuable journal, in the supplement of which, on Saturday last, you in a paragraph state, bona fides I have no doubt, that at above meeting “among the speakers were Presbyterian ministers,”and that “an Orangemen assured the meeting the Land League principals had the sympathy and approval of the great majority of the brethren.” It is surprising the efforts that are being made to represent to the public that Protestants and Orangemen sympathize with the Land League. Twice I've had to contradict their statements regarding man being Orangemen who were not Orangemen. In regard to above statements, I am in duty bound to give a flat denial to them. A Presbyterian minister from a distance did write a violent letter, and it was read at the meeting, but there was not one of that respectable order at the meeting, and that being so I submit no such speeches could have been made. A Roman Catholic from Newry -- the meeting was held in the Roman Catholic district -- did state that “they had the Orangemen of Ulster at their back.” This man is a paid official of the league, and he introduced a Mr. John Pollitt from Manchester, who talked big about a victory gained of seventeen of the majority in a debating club in your city against coercion. The Roman Catholic agent of the Land League has no means of knowing the sentiments of the Orange society, accept what appears in public prints. The opinions of this loyal body over and over again have been so expressed, and always against the “Land League principles”. I am the official who has charge of all the documents connected with the Orange Association in this County, which is the stronghold, as well as the cradle, of Orangeism, and I can state of my own knowledge that the loyal and law-abiding Orangemen to a man have no sympathy with the Land League, but look upon it as Fenianism reclothed and revived.  When “the Land League principles” are more developed, and when the time arrives for throwing off the thin veil, which at present is the land movement, then it will not be “at the back” of the Land League, but face-to-face with it will “the Orangemen of Ulster” be found. The money of the Land League has secured a few -- a very few -- Irish Protestants who migrate from one place to another, flaunting their Protestantism. These are Land League decoy-ducks, but their position and influence are such that those who know them despise them. I am happy to say that I know but one Orangemen in this County who has joined the League. The Irish Protestants and Orangemen know the value of Land League professions. By appealing to our cupidity, they seek to gain at least our neutrality, but “the mess of pottage” in this case will not be bought at the price. We are now, as ever, true and loyal, though frowned upon by men who should know better, and misrepresented in the past by these very Land Leaguers, who now, for their own disloyal and vile purposes, court and caress us. We now, as ever, desire to give offense to no man, but as far as in us lies, live peaceably with all men. The latter cannot be done in Ireland; therefore, for self-defense, faith, and fatherland, we are united, and as in the past, our ancestors saved this country – this United Kingdom -- for England, we are ready to do and dare all our fathers did. The Land Leaguers say we are “Saxon invaders,” and “the British garrison in Ireland.” Providence has so placed us. The position is not of our seeking. We are not men fond of strife, but the reverse. However, we know our duty, and will not shrink from performing it. But we ask English Protestants for their sympathy, and not to credit such paragraphs as I now desire to controvert. We are one nation, one kingdom, Protestants of the same school, and trying to serve the same God. Popery is the bottom of this movement, and it is against it we strive. Ernest English Protestants, we want you to pray for us, and to help us against the common foe. I trust Mr. Pollitt's representations of Manchester men are not true, any more than are those of the Land League. For your own information, Sir, I beg leave to enclose some documents which will show up some of the doings of the Land League. I had the pleasure to deliver a lecture, copy of which I enclose, some six weeks ago to the Orangemen here, in which I tried to set the questions of the land and the Land League in their true light. I will send a copy to any Protestants sending me his address, friend or foe. All we ask for is fair play and no favor. We want a good land measure, but the Land Leaguers do not desire a settlement of the question at all. If that were the case “the hope of their gain” would be destroyed, and the sooner such is done the better.

 - Yours, &c.,

T.G. PEEL, County Coroner,

Armagh,

and D.S.G. Grand Lodge of County Armagh.

 

 

February 14, 1881

______________________________________________

 

DEAR MR. POLLITT, - As already promised, I now come to deal in detail with some of the assertions which Coroner Peel permitted himself to make in his letter to the Manchester Courier concerning the Cullyhanna Land League meeting.

 

I shall only call attention to one of his extraordinary corrections. It is this: -- he feels it “a duty to give a flat denial” to the following statement: -- “An Orangemen assured the meeting the Land League principles had the sympathy and approval of the great majority of the brethren.”

 

Coroner Peel says in effect that no possible Orangemen could be guilty of such a statement, and that this was the utterance or Roman Catholic from Newry, who is a paid official of the league.

 

 Now, Sir, it must be within your own recollection, as it certainly is within mine, that an Orangeman who spoke at the meeting as an, if not in the selfsame words, he did at least in effect, give expression also to the sentences quoted, and contradicted by Coroner Peel.

 

You therefore see the value of this “flat denial,” so disdainfully made by Coroner Peel, ex uno disce omnes.

 

The following contradictory statements in his letter I cannot allow myself to let pass without a brief remark. Mr. Peel states in his own knowledge “that Orangemen to a man (himself included) look upon the Land League as Fenianism reclothed and revived.” And again he says, “Popery is the bottom of this (the Land League) movement.” The only proof, observe, he gives for the statements is his own ipse dixit. These two assertions are, I say contradictory, for this reason: Fenianism stands condemned by a positive public pronouncement of the Pope. If, then, the Land League movement is the same as Fenianism, how in the name of common sense could “Popery” be at the bottom of the Land League movement -- which, however, I know to be false -- then the movement must be different in kind from Fenianism.

 

I now approach that part of Mr. Peel's letter, in which he deliberately affirms: “The money of the Land League has secured a few -- very few -- Irish Protestants, who migrate from one place to another, flaunting their Protestantism. These are Land League decoy ducks, but their position and influence are such that those who know them despise them.” On these words I must reluctantly observe that they are as extravagantly false as they are calculated to mislead the English people. The list of names I herewith submit are Protestants and Land Leaguers. They are the largest farmers here. They are men of the greatest integrity who would scorn to take bribes or bounties. They are Land Leaguers by their own free choice, because they know that the movement is a purely social one, whose aim and object is to undo injustice by constitutional means, and to enable them to live on their own lands by the sweat of their own face. Here are the names: -- James M’Connell[6], Newtownhamilton; Alexander M’Clean[7], do; Joseph M’Guffin[8], do; James M’Burney[9], do; Samuel Nelson[10], Cullyhanna; Crosier Hannah[11], Shetrim, do; George Miley, Dorsey[12], do; Alexander Brown[13], Clobog [sic – Clohog], Crossmaglen; Samuel Donaldson[14], do; Samuel McElveen[15], do; George M’Cullagh[16], do; John Gordon[17], do; William P. Donaldson[18], do; Robert Feely[19], do; William McClean[20], do; Joseph Donaldson[21], do; Thomas Donaldson[22], do; James McAllister[23], Glassdrummun, Crossmaglen; Samuel Coulter[24], do; George Wilson[25], Cullaville, Crossmaglen; Joseph McAllister[26], do; James Hale[27], Crossmaglen; Joseph Hill[28], do; Richard Hall[29], do; Jonathan Hall[30], do; John Stevens[31], do; John M’Allister[32], do; William Coor[33], do; Joseph Corr[34], do; W. Corr[35], solicitor, do. Here are a few selected at random -- and by no means “a very few” Irish Protestants who are Land Leaguers and who do not lead a migratory life, and certainly men who are not despised by anyone, except perhaps by unjust landlords and their agents – et hoc genus omne.

 

I shall take no further notice of this letter except to make a passing observation and one other sentence. It is this: -- “I (Mr. Peel) am happy to say that I know but one Orangemen in this (Armagh) County who has joined the League.”

 

If Mr. Peel means by this the one and only one Orangemen in County Armagh has joined the League, his experience is greatly at fault.

 

In this immediate neighborhood, I am informed there are few Orangemen, yet these few are Land Leaguers. Here are some of their names[36]: -- Joseph M’Connell[37], vice president, Newtownhamilton; Alexander M’Clean, do; Joseph M’Guffin, do; James M’Burney, do; Alexander Brown, Clobog [sic “Clohog”]; Samuel M’Elveen, do; George McCullagh, do; Thomas Donaldson, do; Joseph Hale, Crossmaglen; Jonathan Hale[38], do; David Jackson[39], do; E. Gilmore[40], do; &c.

 

That these are Orangemen I have no reason to doubt, as my information is from a very reliable source. Coroner Peel's experience is therefore, at fault in many ways, and his mode of expressing it is well calculated to mislead.

 

In all probability, Coroner Peel has a meaning of his own for the word “Orangeman.” Its meaning may have recently become ambiguous, for this reason: Those independent men of them who have become Land Leaguers are no longer recognized by the now Orangemen -- so I have learned from a well-informed quarter. If this be so, doubtless Mr. Peel's definition of an Orangeman according to its present acceptation (I suppose, of course, that this definition does not apply to those of them who are Land Leaguers) would be this: All those immediately depending on the landlords for their daily bread, as such, for instance, as bailiffs and landlords butlers, &c -   in one word, all that class would have no interest in the land and who have nothing to suffer from the unjust landlords, or who live by looking up the crumbs which fall from the landlord’s table. How could these men be friendly disposed to this movement? Plainly it has no attractions for them. Such men will not grow weary proclaiming, “Great art thou, O. Bel, and there is not any deceit with …”

 

If this be his meaning, there is not, I am sure, more than one such in this County who has joined the league. On the contrary these men would, doubtless, cast every Land Leaguer in the kingdom into a den of lions. So far I have merely criticized Coroner Peel's letter -- and let me say in no bad spirit, and without imputing any motives to him. I merely exposed what was there plainly set forth, and I tried to show that it was at variance with what everyone here knows to be broad facts, and my own motive in writing this letter at such length is to annotate those loose, if not groundless, statements made by Coroner Peel, and to make the truth known to you and to the English people. I do not intend to make any supplementary remarks. This much I deem sufficient for my present purpose. -- I am, dear Sir, are very respectfully yours,

 

John Quinn[41], C.C.,

Chairman of the Cullyhanna  Land League Meeting.

 

Mr. John Pollitt, Rusholme, Manchester.

February 26, 1881.