Causes of the Opposition to Tithes, 1830-38 by Patrick O'Donoghue (Castleknock College, County Dublin)

(From Studia Hibernica No. 5 (1965), pp. 7-28)
Before one considers the more immediate factors that led to the outbreak against tithes and the tithe system in 1830 it is necessary to bear in mind that this church tax had a long history of un popularity amongst the agricultural population in European countries and in no country more so than in Ireland.l Taxes are and were unpopular, church taxes especially. Neither church nor state had yet devised more painless means for their upkeep, and probably because it was felt that church levies were not always used for the proper purposes and that the church seemed weaker than the secular authority, tithes were under continual fire during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. It is not surprising that in Ireland the peasantry from time to time revolted against the clerical tax gatherer, since tithe was collected from people the vast 'majority of whom were members of another religion,2 in particularly poor economic circumstances, and by a system that was calculated to cause the maximum amount of friction between owner and payer. In fact everything about the tithe system seemed loaded against its working smoothly. The rapacity and robbery perpetrated against the tithe payer by proctors and tithe farmers,3 the unlikeli hood of the occupier of the soil achieving justice in the ecclesiastical4 or even the secular courts, have all been treated of before and need only be noted here in so far as it should-be remembered that a long legacy of hatred and bitterness had been built up against the method by which the established church was supported. Nor should it be forgotten that this church was closely associated with a conquering nation whose ministers in many parts of the country were members 
 1 Second report of the Select Committee of House of Commons on tithes, 1831-32 (508) XXI, 245? Qs. 4969, 2790. Evidence of Sir William Cox and John Dunn (catholic landholder in Kilkenny and tithe commissioner).
 2 Ibid. Q. 4423. Evidence of R. Blake (Chief Remembrancer of the Exchequer).
 3 First report of the Select Committee of House of Commons on tithes, 1831-32 (177) XXI,1, Q. 981. Evidence of Rev. R. Butler (Vicar of Clare, Co. Kilkenny).
 4 Second report of the Select Committee of House of Commons on tithes, 1831-32 (508) XXI, 245, Qs. 5134,5136. Evidence of William Collins (protestant, resident in Kilkenny).
of the local magistracy.5 The fact that the staple food of the people (potatoes) should be tithed south of a line drawn roughly from Arklow to Galway and practically not tithed at all in the rest of the country was another substantial cause for the continued opposition of the tenantry to the tithe system.6 On top of all this new causes were present in the year after emancipation to rekindle the smoulder iAg dislike always felt by the Irish farmer for the sacred tenth. The first rumblings of trouble were heard in Co. Kilkenny where both local and more general causes were responsible for the beginn ing of the opposition. It is difficult to attach more weight to one particular factor than another and a variety of causes, economic, religious and political, all seem to have played their part in the initial refusal to pay the church its legal dues. The comment of the Reverend George Dwyer, a protestant clergyman, on the tithe rate in Leinster and in Kilkenny in particular is interesting. 'I believe tithes have been pushed in consequence of the superior quality of the land and the superior culture and rotation of crops, within the English pale in Leinster, in Kilkenny, in the King's County and the Queen's County and Carlow, and that they are higher and dearer than in any other part of the kingdom. I believe that a sore has been established in Kilkenny on the subject of tithe for some time and that composition was not as easily effected there as elsewhere'?7 This statement is fully borne out by the figures for the average composition for the four provinces. In Leinster the tithe composition average per Wrish acre was one and seven pence halfpenny, in Munster one and two pence halfpenny, in Connacht ten pence halfpenny, and in Ulster eleven pence halfpenny.8 One other general factor about the seat of opposition should also be marked, as it was by the Chief S&cretary Stanley in a memorandum to the prime minister, undated but probably of late 1831.9 In it he notes a characteristic which is not uncommon to peoples revolting against authority, namely that in the counties where opposition first manifested itself the people were relatively better off than in any other part of Ireland. 
 5 Ibid. Q. 3879. Evidence of Patrick Lalor (catholic landholder in Queen's
 6 Second report of the Select Committee of House of Lords on tithes, 1831-32 Co. and later M.P.). (663) XXII, 181, appendix.
 7 First report of the Select Committee of House of Commons on tithes, 1831 32 (177) XXI, 1, minutes of evidence, Q. 1754.
 8 Second report of the Select Committee of House of Commons on tithes, 1831-32 (508) XXI, 245, p. 245, VII.
 9 Papers of the 2nd Earl Grey at Durham University.
The first parish in which the incumbent and tithe payers came into collision was that of Graiguenamanagh, Co. Kilkenny.'0 This parish was united to that of Ullard, part of which lay in Co. Carlow, and the rector was the Reverend George Alcock. From here the opposition spread to other parts of the county and into the neigh bouring county of Carlow. The trouble in Graiguenamanagh dated from the time composition was entered into in 1827. It was felt by some of the parishioners that the sum agreed to between the rector and themselves was too high, and based on a scale of agricultural prices not then obtainable.1' No books as to the previous tithe income of the union were produced.12 There was also dissatisfaction at the applotment of the agreed sum on part of the lands and appeals were lodged at the quarter sessions but dismissed.'3 The fall in prices of agricultural goods in the year after the Napoleonic wars was quite considerable and played its part in making the Irish farmer look closer at the severe burdens which he carried to see if relief could be extracted from any of the parties who had a claim on the soil. The fall in the price of grain from 1820 to 1830 was almost twenty-five per cent. The average price of wheat per barrel from 1816 to 1820 was two pounds, one and eleven pence farthing, and from 1826 to 1830, one pound, eleven and eight pence halfpenny. The average price of oats during the same period was sixteen and five pence farthing and thirteen and three pence half penny.'4 Cattle prices )showed an even greater drop. Milch cows sold in 1813 or 1814 fetched from fourteen to sixteen guineas, while in 1832 they only realized somewhere between six and eight pounds. Dry cattle showed a drop from between nine and twelve pounds, to between four and five pounds.'5 For these reasons and others the people of Graiguenamanagh under the leadership of the parish priest, the Reverend M. Doyle, sought a reduction in the tithe composition during October 1830. In December of the same year and January 1831, several other parsons of the county had deputa 
 10 Often written Graig for short.
 11 First report of the Select Committee of House of Commons on tithes, 1831-32 (177) XXI, 1, Q. 14. Evidence of Sir John Harvey (Inspector General of Police for Leinster).
 12 Second report of the Select Committee of House of Commons on tithes, 1831-32 (508) XXI, 245, minutes of evidence, Q. 3117. Evidence of Dr Doyle (J.K.L.).
 13 Ibid. Qs. 5671, 5675. Evidence of David Burtchaell, J.P.
 14 Ibid. Appendix, p. 527.
 15 Report of Committee of House of Commons on Disturbances in Ireland 1832 (677) XVT, Qs. 7295-7297, 6668-6671. Evidence of J. R. Price (agent and magistrate in the Queen's Co.) and John Cahill (landholder and civil engineer in Co. Carlow).
tions of the local farmers looking for an abatement in their tithe payments.18 On December 30 a large meeting was held at Bennettsbridge, Co. Kilkenny and representatives of the farmers called on Dr. Butler of Burnchurch seeking the abolition of church cess and a reduction of tithe. Some of the arguments quoted by the leaders were that the landlords had made some reduction in their rents and the clergy should do likewhse and that the clergy gave no value for their tithe.'7 Deputations also called on Dr Hamilton of Knock topher looking for a five per cent reduction;'8 the landholders of Castleinch, Grove and Outrath called on Reverend Mr Kearney and said that the earl of Dysart had made two reductions in rent in recent years and that the parsons who gave no value should do the same.'9 Meetings also took place with the Reverend Mr McDarby of Kells, and Reverend Mr Stephenson of Callan, and at Inistioge, Dungarvan, ]Freshford, and Castlecomer, all in the Co. Kilkenny.20 The meetings with the clergymen seem to have been generally conducted in a most respectable manner and had some small reduction been made it is possible the coming clash might have been avoided.21 But one minister, the Reverend A. Peck of Inistioge writing to the chief secretary said that: 'since the re bellion of 1798 T have not witnessed such lawless and outrageous proceedings'.22 However, in all cases the parsons refused a reduction and the farmers refused to pay any more tithe. Apart from the drop in agricultural prices the harvest of 1829 was a bad one and this would have put further pressure on the rural population. In the parish of Graig other reasons were present as well to cause friction over tithes. The rector, Reverend George Alcock, was a gentlemanly old person, liked by the parishioners, but he was now infirm and had entrusted the care of the district to a curate, the Reverend Luke McDonnell. This man was exceptionally lacking in 
 16 These meetings were sometimes held under the guise of hurling matches, and those attending them were known as 'tithe hurlers'.
 17 Freeman's Journal, 6 Jan. 1831. Kilkenny Journal, 30 July 1831.
 18 First report of the Select Committee of House of Commons on tithes, 1831-32 (177) XXI, 1, Q. 42. Evidence of David Burtchaell, J.P.
 19 Freeman's Journal, 13 Jan. 1831.
 20 From Major Browne to Sir John Harvey, 7 Jan. 1831. Outrage Papers H.2,S.P.O.I.
 21 Sir John Harvey to Sir W. Gregory, 23 Dec. 1830, Outrage Papers J. 120, S.P.O.L Sir John Harvey to Hon. E. G. Stanley, 3 Jan. 1831, Outrage PapersH.4, S.P.O.I.
 22 Rev A. Peck to Hon E. G. Stanley, 1 Jan. 1831, State of the Country Papers 1831, S.P.OJ.
judgment and tact and he appears to have gone a long way in helping his catholic tithe payers to start the opposition.23 A magis trate of the area, he so comported himself on the bench that his fellow magistrates refused to sit with him. He also took upon himself the position of tithe agent and collector, a position he was forbidden to hold by the church authorities. Complaints were also made that ai soon as the composition rent became due it was demanded immediately and if not paid goods were straightaway distrained, indeed sometimes even before it was due. The bailiff's fees in distraint were another source of grievanceS The general custom of ministers throughout the country was not to tithe the catholic clergy. Here again the Reverend Luke McDonneU offended, though not quite so clearly as was generally believed. The non tithing custom usually extended to the acre or so of land which a parish priest kept around his house to grow potatoes, etc. but Father Martin Doyle apart from this had rented a farm of forty acres. Whether the custom extended to a case like this or not is debatable but it was hardly the most prudent course to seize the priest's horse for arrears, considering the temper of the times.25 e The curate was also prominent in the New Reformation move ment which several witnesses examined before the Tithe Committee regarded as one of the principal sources of the opposition.26 The New Reformation was a burst of evangelical enthusiasm which spread through the 'established church in the first decades of the nineteenth century., The avowed aim of the movement was the conversion of the Irish peasantry from the errors of popery and romanism. Numerous societies made their appearance such as, the Hibernian Missionary Society, the Bible Society, the Scripture Readers' Society, the Irish Society, the Association for Discoun tenancing Vice, and others. Evangelically minded members of the church, lay and clerical, went through the midlands and south, bible in hand, trying to persuade the people of the erior of their ways and the deceit of the priests. Public disputations were held in many towns and cities and press and pamphlet echoed the attacks 
 23 Sir John Harvey to Sir W. Gregory, 23 Dec. 1830, Outrage Papers H. 120, S.P.O.I.
 24 Second report of the Select Committee of House of Commons on tithes, 1831-32 (508) XXI, 245, minutes of evidence, Q. 5659.
 25 Memorandum of a police officer of the Co. Kilkenny, on Reverend M. Doyle, P.C., Oct. 1833, H.0.100-244, P.R.O.
 26 Second report of the Select Committee of House of Commons on tithes, 1831-32 (508) XXI, 245, Qs. 2793, 3319, 3501, 3884. Evidence of John Dunn, Dr Doyle, Rev T. Blakely (parson) and Patrick Lalor.
and counter attacks of the different parties.27 There is no doubt that the polemics of both sides during the twenties and the opposition of the established clergy in general to emancipation made the catholic farmer put his hand in his pocket with greater reluctance to pay the local parson. In his evidence before the Tithe Committee of the house of commons John Dunn had this to say of the movement: 'Within the last two or three years a body of men comprised principally of clergymen of the established church, with some laymen have gone through Ireland with the avowed purpose of correcting the errors, as they termed them, of the roman catholic church'. And he went on: 'They assailed invariably the religion of the roman catholics, heaping upon it every opprobrium and abuse that it was possible to convey, assailed the clergy of the catholics, describing them as a body of men, of the most, I would say, abandoned character, if at all guilty of the crimes imputed to them; and I am firmly convinced that their affected sneer of compassion for the body of the people in their idolatrous condition, as they stated them to be, operated most powerfully on that class of the people, and brought them to the conclusion of enquiring upon what principle of justice a claim should be made upon them for the maintenance and the support in luxury and pomp of a class of men who in return bestowed abuse of the grossest nature upon their religion and upon their clergy, and affected pity for their idolatrous conditiont.28 The Reverend Theophilhs Blakely, an English protestant clergyman, resident in the diocese of Derry, thought that with these preachers political rancour was often taken for religious zeal, and that was made the instrument of accusation of the great body of the people, both their habits and their priesthood.29 He also noted as a cause 
 27 W. A. Phillips, History of the Church of Ireland, ill, 335-342. W. J. Fitzpatrick, Life, Times and Correspondence of Dr Doyle, 2 vols. Dublin 1880.
 28 Second report of the Select Committee of House of Commons on tithes, 1831-32 (508) XXI, 245, minutes of evidence, Q. 2793.
 29 Ibid. Q. 3511.
of the present trouble the opposition of the clergy to emancipation.30 Particularly bitter controversies raged in the towns of Mountrath and Maryboro where the priests set up rival preachers at one end of the town whilst their adversaries preached at the other end, and these were seen by several people as a direct cause of tithe opposition in the area.31 Tithe opposition in Doon, Co. Limerick in 1832 could be partly traced to the membership of the local Brunswick club by the minister, Reverend Mr. Coote.32 In Roscommon a man was tried fcr shooting the Reverend Mr Day who was known to be a Brunswicker.33 Added to this there were charges of proselytism at Kildaro Place schools and the eviction by protestant landlords of their catholic tenants if they did not send their children to themnM All in all, the relations of protestant and catholic were so charged with bitterness and recrimination that it was hardly likely that the payment of the protestant church was going to be acquiesced in without a fight on the part of the catholic tithe payer. Too many of the clergy of the establishment had assailed the religion of the majority of tithe payers and were on record as opposed to their claims for full rights before the law; now that those tithe payers had secured emancipation they saw no justice in having to support two churches. The change over in the payment of tithes effected by the com position act had an unsettling result and must be reckoned to have played its part in causing thd disturbances.35 Not only were com parisons made between the different parishes under composition but also with those that were not, and the whole effect was to bring before the minds of the people the revenues and salaries of the church. The various provisions of the act provided dissimilar results in different parts of the country according to the type of farming carried on and the previous tithing customs. The bargains struck between the incumbent and parishioners also varied in 
 30 Ibid. Qs. 3499, 3532, 3539.
 31 Ibid. Q. 3250. Also Report of Committee of House of Commons on Disturbances in Ireland 1832 (677) XVI, Qs. 2767-2776, 3302, 3305, 4332, 6890.
 Evidence of John Dillon (secretary of the Queen's Co. catholic association), Rev. W. O'Connor (P.P. of Maryborough), Rev J. Burke (P.P. of Castlepollard), J. R. Price (agent and magistrate in the Queen's Co.).
 32 Chief Constable Brady to Major Millar, 27 March 1832, Outrage Paper M.456, S.P.O.I.
 33 Freeman's Journal, 16 March 1830.
 34 Report of Committee of House of Commons on Disturbances in Ireland, 1832 (677) XVI, Qs. 4730, 3174. Evidence of Rev M. Keogh (P.P. of Abbeyleix) and Rev W. O'Connor (P.P. of Maryborough).
 35 First report of the Select Committee of House of Commons on tithes, 1831-32 (177) XXI, 1, Q. 1834. Rev G. Dwyer (protestant clergyman).
relation to the quality of the land and might be higher in a parish that in fact had not as good land as another patish where the agreed sum for composition was lower. The work of the commissioners who carried out the applotment diffesed in skill and was one of the causes of complaint in Graiguenamanagh. Richard Griffith, a civil engineer, and commissioner of valuation, said that he could make use of only three hundred and eighty-four of the one thousand, four hundred and sixty-eight applotment books in his work of valuation. William Collis thought that the valuators were com pletely prejudiced in favour of the parson. Stephen Wright, protestant land agent, farmer and commissioner in Co. Kilkenny considered the commissioners to be deficient in intelligence, know ledge of the duty to be performed, and respectability. William Palmer, protestant land agent and tithe commissioner also con sidered that the books were deficient.36 In Leinster 520 of the 944 parishes were compounded by January 1832 and in Kilkenny 60 of the 139.31 The putting into operation of the act often raised questions or caused grievances where none hitherto existed. In one parish the cause of grievance might be the actual applotment, in another it might be the fact that a vestry was summoned for the purposes of composition and had to adjourn sine die because no agreement could be reached between the parties or perhaps the bishop would not ratify the sum offered by the parish. By 1830 complaints were voiced that the sums agreed between vestry and incumbent were too high and based on war time agricul tural prices.38 The original composition act of 1823 allowed for a revision of the composition every three years if the price of grain rose or fell by more than a tenth, but in the amendment of 1824 this change was only permitted every seven years.39 Consequently practically no panrsh could look for a revision in 1830 and very few in 1831, and it might be that the composition agreement included leaving the sum untouched for twenty-one years. Therefore, it did not matter whether the smaller farmers benefitted or not by 
 36 Second report of the Select Committee of House of Commons on tithes, 1831-32 (508) XXI, 245, minutes of evidence, Qs. 2945, 2083, 5133.
 37 Appendix to same, p. 584. Harvey in his evidence says 75 had compounded.
 38 First report of the Select Committee of House of Commons on tithes, 1831-32 (177) XXI, 1, Qs. 14, 1301. Evidence of Sir John Harvey (Inspector
    General of Police for Leinster) and William Grace (registrar of the diocese of Ossory. Second report of the Select Committee of House of Commons on
    tithes, 1831-32 (508) XXI, 245, Qs. 2816, 2817, 2959, 2968, 3959, 5165. Evidence of John Dunn (catholic landholder and tithe commissioner), Christopher James
    (lawyer, resident in Kilkenny), Patrick Lalor, Pierce Mahony (solicitor, Dublin).
 39 5 GIV c. 63.
composition, the fact was that they felt it was too high and should be lowered. Dr Doyle lists as one of the complaints of the farmers around Graiguenamanagh that in part of the parish the tithe was equal to the rent and in other places about a half or a third of it.40 What was felt here was not that the tithe was so great but that it should be equal to the rent or a large fraction of it. It would seem that these particular lands were held on old leases and had been considerably improved.4' When the applotment took place no account was taken of the improvements and the composition was therefore high in proportion to the rent. In all probability, because these were almost mountain lands, they were used for grazing and consequently, before composition, tithe free. The method by which composition was agreed upon necessariy brought into the open the values of the various clerical incomes, and to the hard pressed tenantry most of them were princely and capable of reduction.42 It is well to note again that in the first meet ings that took place in Co. Kilkenny between the incumbents and farmers what was looked for was a reduction in tithe and not its abolition. Only when the parsons refused a reduction did the tenantry say they would pay no more and the question of abolishing tithe came to a head only when it had been taken up by the politicians and was grist to the agitators' mill. The landlords had perforce to make some alterations in the large war rents and it was thought that the clergy would do the same in their charges.43 Not only did clerical incomes become better known by the working of the composition act but there was a certain amount of bargaining for them and it was believed that the minister now put more money into his pocket than he did under the old system and should make some abatement.44 Nobody was ever sure what sum he received 
 40 Second report of the Select Committee of House of Commons on tithes, 1831-32 (508) XXI, 245, minutes of evidence, Qs. 3089, 3090.
 41 Ibid., p. 245, VII. Also Q. 5645.
 42 Ibid. Q. 3903. Evidence of Patrick Lalor (catholic landholder, later M.P. 1832). First report of the Select Committee of House of Commons on tithes, 1831-32 (177) XXI, 1, Q. 1834. Evidence of Rev G. Dwyer (parson).
 43 First report of the Select Committee of House of Commons on tithes, 1831-32 (177) XXI, 1, Q. 2119. Evidence of William Palmer. Second report of the Select Committee of House of Commons 
    on tithes 1831-32 (508) XXI, 245, Qs. 5165, 5324. Evidence of Pierce Mahony (solicitor, Dublin), Rev T. Vigors (parson).
 44 First report of the Select Committee of House of Commons on tithes, 1831-32 (177) XXI, 1, Qs. 2210, 2212. Evidence of J. Walsh (catholic magistrate and tithe commissioner in Kilkenny).
    Second report of the Select Committee of House of Commons on tithes, 1831-32 (508) XXI, 245, Qs. 2593, 2640,2609, 2739, 2802, 2969. Evidence of Stephen Wright, Robert de la Cour
    (protestant banker and treasurer of Cork), John Dunn, Christopher James.
previous to 1823. What was on his books might be one thing, what he actually got might be another-that is if there were any books and they did not reveal only a rather chaotic jumble of figures.45 In Graiguenamanagh the sum raised previous to tithe composition was not disclosed. There were instances of a parish being valued at ?1,100 per year but not as much as ?900 ever being received in any one year.46 When the parishioners of Knocktopher, Co. Kil kenny, asked the Reverend H. Hamilton if they might see the tithe books he refused to let them.47 Therewere otherreasons as well which, under composition, probably helped to increase the income of the incumbent. He got more of his money from a better class of farmer, particularly the rich grazier who before this had paid little or no tithe.48 He was saved the expenses connected with a proctor and the innumerable lawsuits which followed in the wake of the old system.41 His method of recovery was now far more expeditious because under the new act he could distrain once the composition became due.50 Because of this it was possible for the smaller fanner to be monetarily better off under composition and yet be treated more harshly, as he was usually given more time to pay under the old arrangement of promissory notes to the proctor. The different currency regulations between 1819 and 1826 which made the Irish and British pound of equal value also worked to increase in some cases the income of the parson. It did happen that the average income of previous years was reckoned in Irish money and then for the sake of composition the amount was struck in British money. This could add almost one-twelfth to the clergyman's income, or if he was making a reduction of ten per cent this method of valuation rendered the reduction purely nominal.5' There were 
 45 Second report of the Select Committee of House of Commons on tithes, 1831-32 (508) XXI, 245, Qs. 2608, 2649, 2813. Evidence of Stephen Wright and John Dunn.
 46 Second report of the Select Committee of House of Commons on tithes, 1831-32 (508) XXI, 245, Qs. 2738,2740. Evidence of Robert de la Cour (protestant banker and treasurer of Cork).
 47 First report of the Select Committee of House of Commons on tithes,
 48 Second report of the Select Committee of House of Commons on tithes, 1831-32 (508) XXI, 245, Q. 2621. Evidence of Stephen Wright. 
 49 Ibid. Q. 2623. Evidence of Stephen Wright.
 50 4 G. IV c. 99.
 51 First report of the Select Committee of House of Commons on tithes, 1831-32 (177) XXI, 1, Q. 2206. Evidence of James Walsh (catholic magistrate and tithe commissioner in Kilkenny). 
    Second report of the Select Committee of House of Commons on tithes 1831-32 (508) XXI, Q. 5165. Evidence of Pierce Mahony (solicitor, Dublin). 1831-32 (177) XXI, 1, Q. 1497. 
    Evidence of Rev H. Langrishe (parson).
of course places where clergymen made a reduction when entering composition because of the benefit that accrued to them but this did not effect the general impression that they were now richer whenever composition was in force. It is difficult to calculate the effects of the clause in the act which abolished the Agistment Resolution and brought grasslands under its terms without knowing in the first place the proportion of grasslands to tillage in any one parish, and secondly the exact local customs of tithing previous to the act being put into force. The general opinion of almost every witness to the committee was that it was a considerable benefit to the small farmers while the bigger ones and particularly the graziers paid more under composition.52 There is little doubt that the larger farmers were generally opposed to its introduction and sometimes were even successful in preventing a parish from entering into the terms of the act. Stephen Wright who rented about 1,100 acres in Co. Kilkenny told the tithe com mittee that his father had secured the lease of his tithe on part of his lands for five guineas. He himself had made a bargain with the incumbent for the same lands at eighteen pounds, but when com position came he paid twenty-six or twenty-seven pounds.53 In another parish where he held lands he had prevented the com position from being enapted. Pat Lalor of Tiniekill, who held about 700 acres and let 100 of them told the committee that his father had secured the tithes on his lands for five guineas, that he himself later paid eight guineas and that under composition his tithe biU was thirty-seven pounds." In composition parishes a new class of farmer, the wealthy grazier and large farmer, was frequently added to the ranks of tithe opponents, and the legion of small farmers and cottiers had now more powerful allies and leaders, and some from the established church itself.5 There were cases where lands that 
 52 First report of the Select Committee of House of Commons on tithes, 1831-32 (177) XXI, 1, minutes of evidence, Qs. 145, 146, 256, 457, 561, 1014,
    1016, 1292, 2331, 2342. Second report of the Select Committee of House of Commons on tithes, 1831-32 (508) XXI, 245, minutes of evidence, Qs. 2532, 2650, 2799, 4078, 5665, 5320.
 53 Second report of the Select Committee of House of Commons on tithes, 1831-32 (508) XXI, 245, minutes of evidence, Qs. 2549, 2556.
 54 Ibid., Q. 3933. 
 55 First report of the Select Committee of House of Commons on tithes, 1831-32 (177), XXI, 1, Qs. 121,147,457. Evidence of Sir John Harvey (Inspector
    General of Police for Leinster), G. Fitzgerald (magistrate in Co. Tipperary) and Joseph Green (resident magistrate in Kilkenny). Second report of the Select
    Committee of House of Commons on tithes, 1831-32 (508) XXI, 245, minutes of evidence, Qs. 2703. Evidence of Robert de la Cour (protestant banker and treasurer for Cork).
paid no tithe before 1823 now paid one-tenth of the whole amount, and in the parish of Castlecomer before composition about 2,000 acres paid tithe, while under it 12,000 acres were liable for payment.TM If the larger farmer and grazier was hit by composition what about the small farmer holding fifteen acres or under? From the census of 1841 which cannot be very far out in the matter of farm sizes for 1831, the number of farms in Leinster between one acre and five acres was thirty-seven per cent of the whole, between five and fifteen acres thirty-four per cent, between fifteen and thirty acres sixteen per cent, and over thirty acres thirteen per cent.57 Calculating roughly, about seventy per cent of the tithe payers in Leinster held land under fifteen acres. In Kilkenny itself the percentage of total farms under fifteen acres was sixty-sevens Thus the majority of tithe payers were in this group in the county and farmers in arrears with their tithes fell mainly into this clause in Co. Kilenny.M8 It was generally held in the evidence before the committee that this class of farmer paid less under composition than formerly. However the nub of the question as to whether he did or not depended on the amount of tillage on his farm and the assessment made of the land by the commissioners. The finances of a ten acre farm in Co. Kilkey were given to the tithe committee and in a parish which was not compounded the tithe amounted to sixty-four shillings.59 Taking the highest known rate for composition in that county which was six shillings per acre, that farm would pay sixty shillings under composition. Taking the average rate of composition for good land for the county, which was three shillings and ninepence per acre, the farm paid thirty-seven and sixpence. In the farm described six acres were tilled, two acres of potatoes, two acres of wheat, and two of oats. Under the average charges for non compounded parishes in Kilkey wheat and potatoes were twelve shillings per acre and oats eight shillings. However if only four acres of this farm was tilled the occupier was probably as well off before composition as after it. Another factor which probably lessened the benefits of com position was that allowances were made in bad seasons by the rector in non-compounded parishes, while the composition was demanded in a far more peremptory fashion, and with no regard 
 56 Ibid., Q. 2535.
 57 Census of Ireland 18419 pp. 454-455.
 58 First report of the Select Committee of House of Commons on tithes, 1831-32 (177) XXI, 1, Q. 2356. Evidence of James Walsh.
 59 Ibid. Q 2389
to the actual value of the crop.60 The average tithe composition in Kilkenny was three and nine pence halfpenny per Irish acre for the best quahty land and one and eight pence halfpenny for inferior land.6' These figures were arrived at by taking only nine parishes of the county, and consequently do not give a fully accurate picture of the position as the rate was far higher in some parishes or parts of them. In parts of Graiguenamanagh the composition was four shfllings, in Wollengrange five and sixpence, in Callan six shillings and the same on lands near the city of Kilkenny.2 Thus again in these places the benefits of composition might be very well minimal. Pat Lalor maintained that only the very lowest class of cottier having an acre or two of tillage was helped by the act and that the farmer of ten acres was as well off before, having a portion of his land in grass for a couple of cows and a horse.63 When one comes to sum up the effects of the composition act, it can perhaps be safely said that it brought clerical incomes very much into the forum of public discussion, and left most people with the impression that they were in fact the chief gainers by it at a time when agricultural prices were falling and war rents had been somewhat abated. It added a more wealthy and powerful class of farmers to the ranks of the anti-tithe party. The relief it conferred on the small proprietor was only partial and frequently offset by the above-mentioned factors, and was in any event only operative in about half of the parishes of the trouble staffing county. The parish where trouble started was compounded and as the opposition spread it did so to compounded parishes and non-com pounded alike. Many held that the fault of the measure was that it was not made compulsory and that if it had been there would be no tithe war. Such a view is hardly tenable when one looks at the economic condition of the vast majority of Irish farmers and the religious and political events of the time. On a sore as easily erruptable as the tithe question the politico relgious turmoil of the day acted like a continual exciter, and bestriding the whole scene was the very exceptional figure of O'Connell and the political machine which he had built up in the 
 60 Second report of the Select Committee of House of Commons on tithes, 1831-32 (508) XXI, 245, minutes of evidence, Q. 3939. 1831-32 (508) XXI, 245, Q. 2509. Evidence of Stephen Wright.
 61 Ibid. Appendix, p. 582.
 62 First report of the Select Committee of House of Commons on tithes, 1831-32 (177) X?g, 1, minutes of evidence, Qs. 75, 462. Second report of the Select Committee of House of Commons on tithes, 1831-32 (508) XXI, 245, minutes of evidence, Qs. 2579, 3098.
 63 Second report of the Select Committee of House of Commons on tithes,
twenties. This age old grevance of tithes found for itself a very different stage in 1830 than at any time previously. Events in the preceding decade had made certain that this problem would assume very different proportions if raised now than it had done at any time in the past. The struggle for emancipation, the prevalance of reforming ideas, and the extraordinary position held by O'Connell in the country were to have considerable effect on what was judged to be a heavy burden by the farming community. An organization, in the loose sense of that word, now existed capable of pushing this or any other grievance, and people far more politicaly articulate and flushed with recent success were waiting to tackle a long list of Irish injustices." And had they not the example of Belgian and French revolts to help them in their tasks? Assuredly a complex of causes urged the Kilkey farmers to tackle the tithe question but it is important to realize that there was present at the time a political climate that was to help very much those who either wanted to alter the tithe system or to abolish it. For a long time church refonn had been a political plank in the whig and radical platform. The method by which the church was supported, its wealth, sinecure positions, pluralities, and absenteeism had been good topics for discussion and writing amongst radical and liberal reformers. At a time when reform of parliament was to become the burning question of the day it was hardly likely that a church, so closely connected with the establishment as the church of Ireland and in such a peculiar position in a predominantly catholic country, could escape the winds of change-and it did not. Nevertheless it would be misleading to see in the outpourings of the radical and whig politicians the cause of the refusal to pay tithes in Ireland. But radical and whig ideas on church reform and ecclesiastical taxation and property were gladly taken up by the press and agitators of the country and the anti-tithe movement had more and stronger allies than ever before. However what is of far greater significance is the political education given by O'Connel to the Irish people in the struggle for emancipation, and the organization he built up to secure the Catholic Relief Act of 1829. The very stubbomness of the enemies of this measure ensured that the organization and methods fashioned by O'Connell were perfected and refined. This organization was not the formal political party that we know today and yet throughout three of the four provinces there were political 
 64 Report of Committee of House of Commons on Disturbances in Ireland, 1832 (677) XVI, Qs. 1271-1281,5997-5998. Evidence of Col Rochfort (magistrate
    in the Queen's Co.) and Robert Cassidy (catholic land agent).
cells of activity ready to agitate any of the well-known and much discussed woes of Ireland. The first experiment in working democracy applied by O'Connell has been fully chronicled elsewhere. What remains to be examined is its effects on the tithe revolt Did it start this opposition in 1830? I think it did not do so directly but the emancipation campaigners, both lay and clerical, were there to exploit and publicize the tithe question once the tenantry made it known that the next question they wanted settled was that Ireland in 1830 stood at a kind of crossroads not very sure where it was going. A certain sense of disappointment followed the passing of catholic emancipation.65 The ordinary lot of people was still the same or perhaps a shade worse. Inevitably when a measure such as religious emancipation is being fought for it takes on, in the popular mind, the character of an eElxir to heal all evils. Much in the same way national independence in our own day has become the universal remedy for all the ills affecting colonial peoples. The election of a few catholics to parliament meant little to the vast bulk of the nation but the disfranchizement of the forty shilling freeholders affected many. There was a sense of disillusionrment and exaspera tion that the relief measure brought no comfort, material or otherwise, in its train. The sentiments of the Reverend Father Tuite, P.P. of Trim at the Meath repeal meeting show clearly enough the feelings of the vast majority of the people in the immediate post-emancipation period, He said, 'catholic emancipation gave religious liberty to Ireland but in palpable benefit how far did it ameliorate the people?' (hear, hear came from the assembly).66 At a meeting of the union of Castledermot to petition parliament for the abolition of tithes the Reverend Mr Molloy said the relief act was a mockery while tithes existed.67 There does not appear to have been any considerable number of evictions as a result of the disfrancizement of the forty shilling freeholders. However all during the twenties and thirties there was a tendency on the part of the landlords to consolidate their estates whenever leases fell in.8 In doing this their aim was probablv to 
 65 Ibid. Qs. 1271-1281,2479,2739,2743,5997,5998. Evidence of Col Rochfort, John Dillon and Robert Cassidy.
 66 Freeman's Journal, 12 Nov. 1830.
 67 Ibid., 3 Jan. 1832.
 68 Report of Committee of House of Commons on Disturbances in Ireland, 1832 (677) XVI, Qs. 1650, 1674, 2487, 2539, 3174, 4649, 5960, 6685, 7252-7268.
    Evidence of Hovenden Stapleton (magistrate in the Queen's Co.), Rev N. O'Connor (P.P., Maryborough), Rev M. Keogh (P.P., Abbeyleix), J. R. Price
    (land agent and magistrate in Queen's Co.), and John Cahill (civil engineer and landholder in Co. Carlow). Freeman*s Journal, 8 and 27 Nov. 1830,22 Jan. 1831.
secure their rents from a better off and more solvent type of tenant. Current economic thought was also on their side and many con sidered that the root of all Irish evils lay in the enormous number of small uneconomic holdings. The sub-letting acts were a reflection of this way,of thinking but judging from the census of 1841 the acts were largely inoperative and any consolidation was on a minor scale. The evictions referred to in the Committee of Irish Distur bances were all in the Queen's County and Kilkenny and took place before 1829 so that the relief act could not be responsible for them. Nevertheless they added to the general sense of exaspera tion and meant that the tithe opposition got support from other disaffected elements in the community and often the more violent sort. There was for instance a huge meeting of 'tithe hurlers' around Castlecomer on 1 January 1831, and this was an area where two years before there had been a big number of evictions in the colliery district.69 The political excitement and activity in the country during these years is not easy for us to understand today. Having obtained emancipation by constitutional agitation O'Connell launched out at the beginning of 1830 on a massive programme of reform for Ireland and the repeal of the Union. All this was to be achieved by similar methods of petition, popular clubs, public meetings, and open associations. The people who had achieved the glorious victory in '29 were still about in 1830 ready and anxious to alleviate further the grievances of the nation. Though the liberator had set repeal as the ultimate aim he had also played the changes on tithes, reform of parliament and the established church, repeal of the vestry, sub-letting, grand jury laws, and corporation franchise. And so as the year passed meetings were held, petitions presented, associations founded and declared illegal, and the country kept in a state of continual ferment. Sir John Harvey, inspector general of police for Leinster issued special instructions to his constabulary in November 183070 in the event of an actual state of rebellion, and wrote: 'The altered spirit of the times appears to the Inspector General to call for some instructions for the guidance of the officers of an establishment to which is committed in an especial manner the impartial duty of watching every circumstance which may 
 69 Freeman's Journal, 6 Jan. 1831.
 70 Secret and confidential instructions of Sir J. Harvey to the constabulary, 11 Nov. 1830. Outrage Papers, H.29, S.P.O.L
appear to indicate a determination on the part of the misguided peasantry to attempt their imaginary objects, or to redress their supposed grievances, by arranging themselves in open hostility to the government. Several circumstances not necessary to enumerate have contributed to produce that excited state of popular feeling, of the existence of which at the present moment, your own reports are to me, gentlemen, the most conclusive proof'. The effects of a visit of O'Connell to Co. Wexford in the autumn of 1830 give us a good picture of the very high political temperate existing at this time. 'I would beg to draw particular attention to the reports of the chief constables stationed at Enniscorthy and Taghmon in the hitherto tranquil and unagitated County of Wexford, and one of these gentlemen is a Roman Catholic. Both of these officers declare that political excitement and party spirit which had quite subsided are again revived in consequence of Mr O'Connell's speeches in the chapels. Mr Coghlan adds that the lower orders are so changed that a riot which he could a short time ago have put down unassisted, he could not now venture to attempt without the presence of a magistrate and large police force. So much for the tranquilizing effects of Mr O'Connell's speeches of which, I observe, he broasts in his place in the House of Commons'.7' Both these letters were written just about the time the people of Graiguenamanagh were looking for a reduction in their com position rent. In such circumstances was it surprising that the farmers moved against one of their oldest and most vexatious burdens, and they did so with the help of their priests on many occasions, men who had played a prominent part in the excitement of the previous years? The part played by the catholic priesthood in the agitation for emancipation was very considerable. They had formed a solid backbone of organization which O'Connell had used With excep tional skill. In February 1830 a pastoral letter of the hierarchy published in the press gave thanks to a gracious sovereign for the great measure of catholic relief and urged the people to a strong 
 71 Report of Sir J. Harvey, 7 Nov. 1830, to Sir W. Gregory, Outrage Papers H.103, S.P.O.L
attachment to the constitution and laws of the kingdom. Publicly it declared that the bishops now laid down a duty, which they hoped would not have to be taken up again and asked the clergy and people to follow its example.72 In the circumstalces of the time this 'Wish of the hierarchy cannot have been more than a pious hope on the part of its more conservative members. The bonds forged between priests and people over many years of persecution and hardship and the political tastes acquired by them in the last few years rendered it extremely unlikely that they would forego intervention in political matters in the future. Besides who was to determine whether tithes were a political or religious question? Many ministers, magistrates, and other supporters of the established church saw in the refusal to pay tithes the work of the priests, the agitators and O'Connell, and while this view may be somewhat prejudiced and an oversimplification, it cannot be denied that the catholic clergy played a very prominent part in the movement In the parish of Graiguenamanagh the parish priest, Father Doyle, played a leading part in the efforts of the people to obtain a reduc don and later in organizing the parish to prevent any tithe sales and in forming a fund to help those whose goods were seized.73 Reverend Mr Walsh, a curate in Muckalee near Castlecomer was also to the forefront of the early meetings of tithe hurlers.74 As the opposition spread reports came from many places of the work of priests in spreading opposition, organizing non-payment, speaking at anti-tithe meetings, and later of their prosecution and even imprisonment. Sir John Harvey, a man in no way prejudiced against the catholic clergy, had this to say.75 'In the confidential report for February I have stated that the work of agitation is apparently committed to a set of persons of the lowest class and most desperate fortunes, and that it is difficult to believe that such extensive mischief can be produced by persons apparently so little influential. Upon this subject I -beg to remark that although I have always given the R.C. priesthood the credit to which they are entitled for their 
 72 Freeman's Journal, 20 Feb. 1830.
 73 Memorandum on the Rev Martin Doyle drawn by the police oificer of Co. Kilkenny, Oct. 1833. P.R.O., H.O. 100-244. Sworn affidavit of Rev Luke McDonnell, 20 Nov. 1830, Outrage Papers M. 120, S.P.O.I.
 74 Sub-Inspector Browne to ?Sir John Harvey, 28 Dec. 1830, Outrage Papers H.119, S.P.O.I. H.730, S.P.O.L
 75 Report of Sir J. Harvey, 21 March 1832 to Sir W, Gossett, Outrage Papers
influential exertions in restraining the people from committing breaches of the peace, yet it cannot be doubted that they are the Real Agitators of Ireland upon the questions of repeal, tithes, poor law, vestry and sub-letting acts'. Stanley saw the opposition collared in the autumn of 1832 but for the uneasy exertions of the priests, and after a series of prosecutions they were the only orators left.76 Lord Anglesey saw O'Connell working all his plots through the medium of the priests. Such was the power of the catholic clergy felt to be at this time that there again cropped up the question of some state payment for them. Early in 1832 Grey wrote to Anglesey, 'I shall be very glad indeed if you can think out a good plan for paying the catholic clergy a most necessary measure for the tranquility of Ireland'.78 No actual measure was ever publicly brought forward but an unsigned memorandum$,dated 1831, among Earl Grey's papers deals with a scheme for awarding exhibitions to all newly ordained priests from Maynooth and elsewhere, 'as the catholic clergy at present would not and probably could not accept a payment'. This it was thouglht might win over the younger clergy who, 'were the most inflammatory from their circumstances'. Several observers noted the new type of priest being turned out of Maynooth, about this time, in comparison to the older, more conservative, continental product.79 The part priests played in the tithe war is clear enough, but I do not think that they were the instigators. Tithes were a problem very near the heart of the people and one which affected them very closely. Because of the pecuHar relationship between priests and people the priest was bound to help them in their struggle and sympathize with their aims. His sympathy was perhaps increased as he realized that parishioners of his had to support two churches and when he reasoned that the original wealth of the church was in part a trust for the relief of the poor. If O'Connell in his efforts to win catholic emancipation had relied on the clergy to form part of his political power of organized public opinion he had built up the other half on the support of the catholic middle classes, the larger farmers and traders of the towns. It is doubtful if any section of the country's population can have 
 78 E. G. Stanley to Earl Grey, 10 Sept. 1832. Durham University, Papers of 2nd Earl Grey. E. G. Stanley to Earl Grey, 24 Sept. 1832. Durham University, Papers of 2nd Earl Grey.
 77 Lord Anglesey to Earl Grey, 14 Aug. 1831, P.R.O., N.I.
 78 Earl Grey to Lord Anglesey, 15 Jan. 1832, P.R.O., N.I.
 79 Mr Fitzgerald to Sir William Gossett, Nov. 1832, H.O. 100-243, P.R.O.
been more politically conscious at any time than they were in the eighteen thirties. The people prominent on anti-tithe platforms of 1832 were on the emancipation platforms of 1828. The organized agitation of 1829 was ready in 1830 to be transferred to any other desirable object, and though O'Connell set repeal as the ultimate goal he himself and his followers were never inhibited from creating as much trouble as possible on any other fronts and what more suitable one than tithes. On Christmas Eve 1831 Lord Anglesey wrote to Earl Grey that the tithe question was now the great agitating cause and so alarmed were O'Connell and his pack at any approach to a satisfactory adjustment of that difficult question that they were working with even more than usual energy to produce anarchy and confusion.80 No better example can be found of how this question was taken up by the 'demagogues' than the start of the opposition in the Queen's County in February 1831. The town of Mountrath was the centre of the trouble and here different causes irritated the tenantry into refusing to pay the church, but because there were in the area men like Pat Lalor, who was in 1832 to become a member of parliament, the grievances connected with tithes entered the political stage and the local farmers got leadership and organization. Dissatisfaction at tithes and church cess had been present for some time in the Union of Clonana and Clonaheen (Mountrath was the parish church).81 Dean Scott, the rector for some forty years up to 1828 was an absentee and had never visited the parish. When he died there was a dispute as to the appointment of a successor and two curates Revs. Harpur and Vesey were appointed by the bishop to look after the temporalities of the union. Rev. Vesey, contrary to the custom of the parish, which was not under composition, valued the tithes per barrel and not per acre. This in effect meant a far closer and tighter valuation than the parishioners were accustomed to and caused much complaint. Eventually in 1829 the Rev. John Latouche was collated to the bebefice and entered into composition with the parishioners for ?1,500. Some years previously the local cutate, who leased the tithes from Dean Scott, offered to enter composition for ?1,000, but nothing came of it. The parishioners consequently felt that they were paying far too much, and that it had not been entered into fairly. Firstly the composition was 
 80 Lord Anglesey to Earl Grey, 24 Dec. 1831, P.R.O., N.I.
 81 Second report of the Select Committee of House of Commons on tithes, 1831-32 (508) XXI, 245, Qs. 3045-3075, 3178-3896. Evidence of Dr Doyle (J.KX.) and Patrick Lalor (catholic landholder and M.P. 1832).
agreed to by one vestry for the union though the act specified that a vestry should be held in each parish of the union, and secondly people who did not pay tithes, fifty pound freeholders and magis trates were mainly responsible for having it passed.82 The people naturally considered it to be unjust that though farm prices were falling, tithe composition was rising. They offered the rector's agent, the rector having since gone away and not returned, ?1,090 which they felt to be the value of the parish since the lessees of Dean Scott were prepared to take ?1,000 in the old currency and they promised he would get it without any litigation or trouble. Nothing came of the offer and the tithe payers refused to pay. Matters were not improved by the zeal of Captain Gordon and his itinerant band of preachers when they visited the town. Another cause of complaint was the building of a new protestant church which was considered totally unnecessary and which the parishioners had to support by way of church cess. At a repeal meeting in Maryboro on 10 February 1831 Pat Lalor declared, admidst great acclamation, that he no longer would pay any tithes but would alow the parson to seie his goods and he was sure no man would be found to bid for them. The meeting was also addressed by Mr Finn of Carlow, Mr Cassidy of Jamestown, Dr Sheridan of Stradbally, Mr George Adair, and Mr Kelly, High Sheriff of the county for the preceding year, all men prominent in the emancipation struggle and some close friends of O'Connell. The church establishment generally came in for some pretty heavy fire at the hands of a number of speakers.83 Nothing could be more typical than this in the manner in which the tithe problem got caught up in the whirlwind of political activity that swept much of the country at this time. One might say the land war was begun on a side issue, tithes, and now for the first time constitutional agitation was used to remedy the lot of the Irish tenant. The union of Clonana and Clonaheen is also typical in the causes that gave rise to the dissatisfaction with tithes. In other parishes to which the opposition spread very similar causes were at work and in non-compounded parishes the frequent injustices of the tithe proctor.84 Sub-Inspector 
 82 4 G. IV. c. 99. 5 G. IV. c. 69.
 83 Sir John Harvey to Sir W. Gossett, 15 Feb. 1831, Outrage Papers H.9, S.P.O.I., Freeman's Journal, 1, 17, 31 March, 12 April 1831. Anti-tithe notice
    included in letter of Rev Mr Penton to Sir W. Gossett, 3 Dec. 1831, Registered Paper 3449, S.P.O.I.
 84 Second report of the Select Committee of House of Commons on tithes, 1831-32 (508) XXI, 245, minutes of evidence, Q. 3131.
Wray of the Queen's County, when giving his evidence before the Committee of the House of Commons in 1832 on Irish disturbances thought that tithes would be paid again if the people were so advised by those from whom they look for advice, namely the middle-class of respectable farmers and traders." It is more than doubtful if they would have so done, but it is a striking tribute to the power in the land which O'Connell had fashioned. Patrick Blanclfield of Clara, Co. Kilkenny who was prosecuted for his part in an anti tithe meeting at Bennettsbridge and Peter Loughnan also of Kil kenny are typical of the new class of politically alive, large farmer. Blanchfield held 163 acres in the parish of Clara according to the applotment books for the parish.86 Loughman who was prosecuted for inciting a riot at a tithe sale in Freshford, held fee simple property worth ?3,000 and other lands on a 999 year leaseY7 One more instance perhaps may be given of the effect of political stimulation on the tithe question. Just as the first shots were being fired between parsons and farmers in Co. Kilkenny an election contest took place there in February 1831 between Colonel Butler and Lord Duncannon. O'Connell threw all his suppoft behind Colonel Butler and a bitter contest ensued. Messrs Finn, Marcus Costello, Steele, Maruice O'Connell and others went through the county each taking a barony as his respective area and harangued the people in the chapel yards.Y8 While there is no record of their speeches it is easy to imagine the powerful effect that they must have had and the temporalities of the church certainly did not escape their censure.89 Sir John Harvey, in my opinion a most fair-minded man, considered that the tithe opposition did not originate with the lower orders, but was caused by the publicly expressed opinions of influential persons.90 
 85 Report of Committee of House of Commons on Disturbances in Ireland, 1831 (677) XVI, Qs. 3909-3913. Evidence of Capt Wray (police officer, Queen's Co.).
 86 Applotment Books of parish of Clara, Co. Kilkenny (Ossory), P.R.O.I. 
 87 Kilkenny Journal, 3 and 6 Aug. 1831.
 88 Extract of a letter from Dr Kinsella, Bp. of Ossory to Dr Murray, Archbp. of Dublin and forwarded by Lord Anglesey to Lord Melbourne, Feb. 1831. P.R.O., H.O. 100-236.
 89 First report of the Select Committee of House of Commons on tithes, 1831-32 (177) XXI, 1, Q. 487. Evidence of Joseph Green (resident magistrate Co. Kilkenny).
 90 Ibid. Q. 13. Evidence of Sir John Harvey (Inspector General of Police for Leinster).