User:Jnestorius/Maamtrasna murders

< Maamtrasna murders

The Maamtrasna murders or Maamtrasna massacre was the mass murder by a group of men, on the night of 17–18 August 1882, of a sheep farmer named John Joyce, and four members of his family, at their home in the townland of Maamtrasna, on the border between counties Mayo and Galway in the west of Ireland. After a tip, ten men were arrested, of whom two turned Queen's evidence against the rest, who were tried and found guilty of murder. The first three tried, who had pleaded not guilty, were hanged; the rest pleaded guilty and had their death sentences commuted. Among those executed was Myles Joyce, (Irish: Maolra Seoige ), who denied all involvement; the night before the hangings, the other two condemned men admitted their guilt and protested Myles Joyce's innocence.

The case became a cause célèbre for Irish nationalists in 1884 after one of the Queen's evidence-men claimed to having falsely implicated Myles Joyce and some of those in prison. The Irish Parliamentary Party (IPP) used the case as proof that the justice system was prejudiced against the Catholic peasantry or tenant farmers. The dispute contributed to the collapse of the second Gladstone ministry in 1885 and a temporary alignment of the IPP with the Conservative Party, dubbed the Maamtrasna Alliance. The Conservatives had promised an official review of the case, which subsequently recommended no action. In the 2010s, a renewed campaign to secure a pardon for Myles Joyce was launched by language rights activists who emphasised that he spoke no English and had to interact with an English-speaking criminal justice system with only a policeman as interpreter. While the possibility of securing a royal pardon from the British government had been mooted, it was the President of Ireland who issued a posthumous pardon on 4 April 2018.

Crime

The victim's house was in a "hamlet or tiny cluster of miserable huts" variously called either Maamtrasna, like the townland in which it lay, or Foxhillmore, like the hill overlooking it to the south (Méall a'tSionnaigh).

Investigation

On 6 May 1882 Lord Frederick Cavendish and Thomas Henry Burke, top officials in the Dublin Castle administration, were stabbed to death in the Phoenix Park, Dublin, by the Irish National Invincibles. The government responded with the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Act, colloquially called the Crimes Act; the latest in a tradition of "Coercion Acts".

Hangings

Hangman William Marwood was asked to accept less than three times his standard fee For performing all three hangings at the same time.

The Spectator

1882:

the existence in particular districts of Ireland of a class of peasants who are scarcely civilised beings, and approach far nearer to savages than any other white men ... The cotters of Maamtrasna ... now under trial, clearly belonged to this class, utterly wretched, utterly poverty-stricken, utterly without hope of better things, as little under Christian influence as the animals, but when alarmed or excited, dully ferocious and bloodthirsty. Some of them were, it is believed, implicated in some way in the murder of Lord Ardilaun's bailiffs, and knew that the police, with whom they were always at war, suspected them. They also either knew or suspected that some one member of a neighbouring family, also named Joyce, had given the police the clue, and could, if willing, supply still further evidence. They did not know, however, which member of the family was the guilty party, and therefore, under the guidance of two of their number, one of whom is just convicted, resolved to remove the danger by murdering them all,—those innocent, even in their eyes, as well as the guilty.

1884:

Supposing that the same trial had been conducted in the same way and with the same result in England, would he regard the grounds advanced for an independent reinvestigation of the case as sufficient, insufficient, or totally worthless? We have no hesitation in saying that had this been the question, nine out of every ten Englishmen would have declared the grounds to be totally worthless, while nine out of every ten of the minority who did not think them totally worthless, would have held them to be quite insufficient to justify so very grave and dangerous a proceeding as the reopening of a criminal trial conducted by an able Judge, by thoroughly earnest and competent counsel, with the same conclusion three times arrived at by independent juries.

1885:

We fear that Lord Carnarvon is preparing a similar experience for himself in Ireland. He is exciting hopes which he must eventually disappoint. What does he intend to do in the Maamtrasna case? No fresh evidence is forthcoming, and without fresh evidence of a very cogent kind the Viceroy will hardly venture to cancel the verdict of an impartial Jury, confirmed as it was by a most able and conscientious Judge, and still further ratified by the careful inquiry of Lord Carnarvon's predecessor and the Irish Lord Chancellor. To upset, without overwhelming evidence, a conviction fortified by so many safeguards, would strike so serious a blow at the administration of justice in Ireland that it would be unjust to Lord Carnarvon to believe him capable of it. The outburst of indignation caused by his agreeing to reopen the case at all must have proved to him how impossible it would be to try an additional experiment of a more aggravated kind on the patience of the British public. But if, on the other hand, Lord Carnarvon confirms the finding of Lord Spencer, he will speedily find himself figuring in Parnellite rhetoric as an accomplice in Lord Spencer's alleged crimes.

Theories

By the doctrine of common purpose, all the conspirators who went to John Joyce's cottage were guilty of murder, regardless of whether they entered the house. Apologists for the hangings suggested that Myles Joyce and the others who protested their innocence did so sincerely but mistakenly, in that they were members of the group but had not dealt any of the fatal shots or blows, and believed therefore that they were not guilty of any crime.

Pardon

In 2015, following legal advice from Attorney General Máire Whelan, Taoiseach Enda Kenny commissioned an expert review of the case from Niamh Howlin of University College Dublin Law School, which concluded that the "trial, conviction and execution of Myles Joyce were unfair by the standards of criminal justice at the time". On 27 March 2018 the Fine Gael–led government accepted the proposal of Charlie Flanagan, the Minister for Justice and Equality, to recommend to Michael D. Higgins, the President of Ireland that he issue a pardon. Higgins had supported the campaign for a pardon before he was formally authorised to issue it. The certificate of pardon, written in Irish, was signed by Higgins on 4 April 2018 at a ceremony in Áras an Uachtaráin attended by relatives of the pardoned man, the murder victims, and the hanged Patrick Joyce.

Legacy

Was "atypical in both its premeditation and its brutality".

List of people

The recurrence of common given names and the surnames Joyce and Casey makes it hard to keep track of the people involved.

People involved in the Maamtrasna case

Name	Location	Relationship	Role per Harrington
Patrick Joyce	Shanvallycahill	not a relative of Myles	executed, guilty
Patrick Casey			executed, guilty
Myles Joyce			executed, innocent
Michael Casey			penal servitude, guilty
Martin Joyce		brother to Myles	penal servitude, innocent
Patrick Joyce	Cappanacreha	brother to Myles	penal servitude, innocent
Tom Joyce		son of Patrick–Cappanacreha	penal servitude, innocent
John Casey (little)	Cappanacreha		penal servitude, innocent
Anthony Philbin	"some distance away" from Anthony Joyce	Thomas Casey's brother-in-law	approver, innocent
Thomas Casey	Glensaul, "some distance away" from Anthony Joyce		approver, guilty
John Casey (big)	Bun-na-cnic (Bun an Chnoic in tld Derry)		leader of the murderers, at large
John Casey, Junr	Bun-na-cnic	son of Big John Casey	murderer, at large
Pat Leyden		nephew of Anthony Joyce	murderer, now in England
Anthony Joyce	lived within two hundred yards of Myles Joyce, and less of Patrick Joyce–Cappanacreha		witness
John Joyce	Derry	brother of Anthony	witness
Patrick Joyce	Derry	son of John–Derry	witness
John Joyce	Maamtrasna		murdered man
Michael Joyce (boy)	Maamtrasna	son of John–Maamtrasna	died of wounds
Patrick "Patsy" Joyce (boy)	Maamtrasna	son of John–Maamtrasna	recovered; taken to Artane Industrial School. Received £250 compensation from the Lord Lieutenant.
John Joyce (young)	Bun-na-cnic	nephew of big John Casey	the man whom the murderers called out to join them
Pat Kelly			Alleged by Thomas Casey to be in the murder party; never arrested or charged Thomas Casey told Harrington that "Pat Kelly" was an alias for Pat Leyden.
Michael Nee			Alleged by Thomas Casey to be in the murder party; never arrested or charged Thomas Casey told Harrington that "Michael Nee" was an alias for John Casey, jun.
Martin Joyce		son of John–Maamtrasna	Not at Maamtrasna, at least during the murder. Received £250 compensation from the Lord Lieutenant.

Harrington

the house of the murdered family was in the middle of a row of some ten houses, extending along the path or "street," as one of the witnesses called it, and these houses are nearly all occupied by Joyces and O'Briens, cousins of the murdered man and his wife. Anthony Joyce, himself, was a cousin of the murdered man.

Motive, according to Thomas Casey's account to Harrington:

• Stealing sheep
• the local Ribbon society had John Joyce–Maamtrasna as treasurer and Pat Joyce–Shanvallycahill as head
• John Casey alleged to Thomas that John Joyce–Maamtrasna had tried three times to shoot him, and inform on the Ribbon society if Casey complained to the police
• Patrick Joyce (?–Derry) alleged that John Joyce–Maamtrasna had misappropriated society funds

---

Waldron

"Many non-English speakers could understand it adequately, but to think out their replies while the interpreter was translating, they feigned total ignorance".

Mysteries of Ireland: MASSACRE OF A FAMILY AT MAAMTRASNA

Five persons killed and one wounded.

There never was a more bloodthirsty murder committed in any country than the one we are about to record. A family of six persons were brutally attacked at early morning on the 18th of August. Two of them were shot, and the other four so badly beaten with hammers and other blunt instruments that two, besides those shot, were dead, and one of the other two died from his wounds on the following day. The young lad, aged 14, before his death, identified four men, who were arrested. Only two of the family were shot. The others bore signs of having been murdered by blows from a hammer or of some large heavy instrument. The bodies were horribly disfigured. Evidences of a struggle in the house were apparent. The other boy was despaired of.

As far as could be ascertained, the butchery took place about one o’clock on the morning of Friday, August 18th. The whole household of six persons —John Joyce, aged about 45 years; Bridget Joyce (his wife), aged about 40; Margaret Joyce, jun., his daughter, aged about 17; Michael and Patrick Joyce, his two sons, aged 14 and 11 respectively, all being his children by his first wife— were in bed asleep, as was the sixth inmate of the house, Margaret Joyce, sen., the mother of John Joyce, an old woman of over 80 years. The door of the house, as was customary in the district, appeal to have been left unfastened, so that the murderers must have found little difficulty in effecting an entrance. From the accounts given by the only eye-witnesses, namely, the two sons, one of whom alone survived, it was uncertain whether there were two, three, or four men in the murderous gang; but judging from the position in which John Joyce’s body was found, and from other circumstances, it would appear that he was aroused by the entrance of the party, and that he got out of bed apparently with his back towards the men as they came in from the doorway. They appear to have then immediately inflicted a blow with some heavy blunt instrument on the back of his head, which probably stunned him and knocked him down. He was found lying on his face, but slightly on the left side, with, in addition to the wound already mentioned, two bullet wounds, both in the back, one being four inches below the right shoulder-blade, and in a vertical line with it, and entering the lungs, the other being three inches farther down and slightly farther back. This second bullet pierced the liver. There was no appearance of any struggle here or in any part of the house. The next person attacked appears to have been the wife (Bridget Joyce). Doubtless the assailants were well acquainted with the interior arrangements of the household, and It also appears that they carried with them a piece of lighted bogwood, for even in broad daylight there was no light save from the door, from the chimney, and from the small aperture, about a foot square, and which, unglazed, is the only thing that can be called a window in the whole place. Mrs. Joyce was killed by repeated blows from a bludgeon on the head and face, disfiguring her face very much. She appears to have survived for a few hours, and to have died in great agony, her hands were clenched, and in one of them was a small quantity of hair, which the doctors did not think was her own hair, but they gave no decided opinion on the subject. The evidence given at the inquest further led to the conclusion that the party next entered the room off the kitchen, about 12ft. by 5ft. or 6ft. in which was a bed about 5ft. long by 3ft. wide, the length being increased by placing a barrel on end at the foot of the bed. In this bed were four persons: the aged grandmother and her three grandchildren. The old woman, it was believed, was attacked first, and was killed by one or two strikes of the bludgeon, for one of the boys (the oldest) stated that he was first awoke by the cries of his grandmother, and that he then himself was shot, and that another man took up a stick and struck ins sister. The younger lad was also sufficiently injured to render him incapable of moving so as to give the alarm, even had the thought suggested itself. He received a blow on the forehead and another on the lower part of the lace. The first-mentioned blow caused for a time concussion the brain, but there was every reason to hope that he would recover, and that through his instrumentality the perpetrators, some of them, would be brought to justice.

Having thus, as they supposed, completed their work in probably less than five minutes, the ruffians disappeared, having first taken the door off the hinges and left it outside.

At daybreak Michael, who had received two bullet wounds, one behind the ear and another in the stomach, causing the entrails to protrude, got up to get a drink of water, He then, as he stated before his death, saw his father lying the floor dead. After getting the drink, and probably because he felt unable to go back to the inner apartment, he went into the bed where his step-mother was and lay down in it. She was then still alive. The occurrence of the terrible tragedy first became known to the neighbours about six o'clock in the morning, when a man named Collins called at the house to get a wool card. He found John Joyce lying dead. He told two among the neighbours. By half past nine o'clock enough of the neighbours had been got together to proceed to Finney police hut and inform the police, who, on proceeding to the place, discovered the full extent of the tragedy. Michael was still alive and able to give some information. Patrick, the younger boy, was also alive; but the other four inmates of the house were dead. Two dogs, variously said to belong to the house and to some of the neighbours, were in the bed in the inner room, and had gnawed the flesh almost entirely from the right arm of the grandmother. The dogs were removed with great difficulty, and when they were at last got out seemed to become mad, and were killed by the police.

Dr. Hegarty arrived from Clonbur about two o’clock, and found Michael in a dying condition, but perfectly clear in his intellect. He had already told the police all he knew, as had also also the younger lad, Patrick. Michael died about four o’clock in the afternoon. Before this, Mr. Brady, R.M., who happened to be in Cong, had arrived, with Sub-Inspector Gibbons. They found Michael in great agony, and Mr. Brady appealed to the people, a crowd of whom —men and women— were assembled on the hill-side, that one or two of their number should assist in attending the two wounded lads, adding that he would reward them with any reasonable amount of money. No response was made to this appeal, and notwithstanding the upbraidings of Mr. Brady, the people persisted in refusing, and the wounded lads had to be left to the care of the police. A body of people remained at the place all Friday night and on the following day.

On Saturday, Aug. 19th, a large number of men and women again assembled close to the house and held a wake, there being two crates of pipes and tobacco on the ground. Most of them preserved a stolid appearance, but some of the women cried bitterly at times. About one o’clock Patrick was placed on a stretcher and conveyed to Cong, a distance of thirteen miles, over the mountain, across the lake, and thence by road.

Joyce held a farm on Colonel Clement’s estate, paying £6 a-year rent, The police could only surmise the cause of the tragedy, but the most probable conjecture was that there was a fear that the members of the murdered family, or some of them, were likely to give information about one or other of the murders committed in the locality, about especially about the murder of the Huddys. The police found a revolver bullet of small size close to the naked body of Joyce.

Thirteen arrests were made — five on Friday the 18th of August, and eight during Sunday night, the 20th, Sub-lnspectors Gibbons and Smyth having been out nearly all night in the district on the 19th, with a strong body of police. All the men were arrested in their houses save one, who was arrested on his way home on the Saturday from the wake. The nearest house to that of the deceased man was about fifty yards off. The locality of this appalling tragedy is in one of the most remote districts of the mountains of Connemara. It is twelve miles from Maam, at the base and back of a mountain over which no vehicle can travel. The mountain pass is three miles in length. The unfortunate man Joyce was herding a ‘Boycotted farm’ No tenant had been evicted from the land, but it had been let in grazing, a method of agriculture quite as unpopular in many districts as the cultivation of an evicted holding. The land was said to be on the property of a Mrs. Rutledge, though it was also but there stated to have been purchased by Lord Ardilaun. Finney had no telegraphic communication nearer than Oughterard and Cong, which accounted for the few details ascertained. The shots were fired in the house and were discharged from rifles. The house presented a horrible spectacle, the bodies lying on the floor, riddled with bullets, and mangled by heavy blows. Joyce, who was wretchedly poor, belonged to the small farming class. He was regarded as an industrious, inoffensive man.

The Inquest

The Coroner opened the inquest on the bodies on Saturday afternoon, Aug. 19th, holding it in an open enclosure at the back of the house. The jurors were the mountaineers of the district. About one hundred women, wearing short red and white petticoats and shawls over their heads, sat close together on the mountain just above, and the whole scene, varied with the uniforms of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and framed in by the immense range of mountains which towered high on every side, formed a picture strikingly picturesque and impressive. Mr. Cottingham, the Coroner, having sworn the jurors, some in English and the others in the Irish tongue:

Andy Joyce, a cousin of the deceased John Joyce and his wife, identified all the bodies.

John Collins, an Irish-speaking witness, deposed that he lived in the townland of Maamtrasna with his father, who was a tenant. On Friday morning, Aug. 18th, about six o’clock, he went, accompanied by two women who were carrying wool on their shoulders, to John Joyce's house to got two cards for combing wool. Finding the door open, he went in, and saw Joyce lying naked on the floor on the left hand side of the fire. He was dead.

Witness then went for the police of village, and on coming back found John Joyce, Bridget Joyce, the grandmother, and Peggy, the girl, all dead in the house; the two boys Michael and Patrick were in bed with their grandmother and sister. They were asked what had happened. Michael, the elder, said at first he did not know. When again asked what had happened, Michael replied that he thought he saw three men come into the house. He was asked did he know them, and ho said he did not, but he thought they had dirty faces.

Constable John Johnstone deposed that he was stationed at Finney, and on Friday morning, Aug. 18th, at nine o’clock eleven men came to the police and reported to him that John Joyce and his wife, his mother, and his daughter had been murdered in their house at Maamtrasna. He proceeded to the place in company with Sub-Inspector Lenihan. On reaching Joyce’s the door was open. It was off the hinges, and he went into the house. He found Joyce lying on the floor, his head towards the fireplace, and face downwards. Bridget was lying in bed d«ad. The old woman Margaret (Peggy) and the little girl were also lying dead in another bed. Patrick and Michael, the two sons, had been badly wounded, but were alive and both able to speak. Witness asked Michael what had happened. Michael said two men had come into the room and shot him in bed. He then saw one of them take up something like a stick and strike his mother on the head, and he heard his mother cry out. About break of day he got out of bed, and went into the kitchen to procure a drink of water. He obtained the water, and saw his father lying on the floor. He went to the bed in which his grandmother was lying, and lay down. His mother was then living. Before the men came into the room he heard shots. Witness asked him how many men he saw in the house, and he said three or four, and their faces were blackened. When asked did he know any of them, he said ‘No.’ Witnessed [sic] ascertained that the little fellow was living, and he asked him what had happened to him, and he said he did not know exactly. Two dogs were found in the bed where the grandmother was lying. They had gnawed away a portion of one of her arms. They were removed out of the room with difficulty, showing much unwillingness to go. After they were put out the people came and asked him for permission to kill them, as they appeared to have gone mad. He gave the permission, and they were killed.

At this stage the inquest was adjourned until Aug. 23rd. At the adjourned inquest, after the examination of a number of witnesses, the Jury returned the following verdict:— 'We find that John Joyce came by his death in his own house, at Maamtrasna, in the parish of Ross, barony of Ross, county of Galway, on the night of the 17th or morning of the 18th of August, 1882, and we are unanimous in saying lie was feloniously and wilfully murdered by some persons, but by whom we have no evidence to show.' Similar verdicts were returned as to the other victims.

At the adjourned inquest the excitement in reference to the massacre of the Joyce family continued, and the greatest indignation existed and was openly expressed. To reach the locality of the murder from Cong, which is the nearest telegraph station, is by no means an easy matter. It consists of a journey by car and boat and a mountain ascent, which occupies five hours. Early in the morning a number of the constabulary force in the neighbouring districts proceeded to the spot, and were reinforced by a detachment of infantry, but their services were unnecessary, except that they were able to keep the crowd back from the house in which the murders were penetrated, and to keep order in a yard outside the hovel in which the Coroner held his adjourned inquest. This was a 'little shanty' on the side of the mountain, which was used as a residence by some human beings; but there was no sign of proprietorship, and the Coroner and jurymen, and those who had to be present at the inquest, had taken full possession. A table had been arranged just within tac door, through which the only rays of light were admitted to the building, and at this the Coroner, who had been detained on Lough Mask for two hours on account of the heavy weather, took his seat about three o’clock. The gathering of men and women crowded round the spot, but apart from the jury and a few of the officials, they were not able to hear a word of the proceedings, which lasted an hour. The first business was to read over the evidence of Collins, the man who discovered the murdered people, and that of the witnesses at the previous inquest, and with a few amendments the depositions were signed, after which the medical men gave their evidence, and as the police authorities did not call the witnesses upon whom they relied to support the charges of murder, the verdict was soon arrived at, and was received with satisfaction by those who were awaiting the result. A long time was occupied in signing the five parchment documents upon which the verdict was engrossed. Several of the jurymen could not write their names, and it was noteworthy that several of those who could bore the name of the murdered family Joyce.

After the inquiry concluded, the eldest son of Joyce, who was in a situation in Clonbur, on the opposite side of Lough Mask, visited the house in which the deed was committed, and seemed much affected. He had been accompanied over the mountains by two of the constabulary, and heard, amidst the sympathy of those who had congregated at the spot, the result of the inquest.

The cottage within was a bare room, everything having been removed, and nothing but the blood-stained walls remained. The little recess in which Joyce and his wife, who were the first victims, slept, presented a horrible spectacle, and the small inner room where the other victims were discovered was little less revolting.

The little boy, the only survivor of the massacre, who was lying in Cong, was improving, although at first his life was despaired of. He was prostrate and unable to give any account of the terrible affair, and there can be no doubt was fast asleep when the deeds were committed.

Identification of the Assassins

The hunt through the mountains pursued by the Royal Irish Constabulary, and a detachment of the 45th Regiment, the week after the murder, had a most satisfactory result, fifteen persons being taken, and ten of these were individually identified by three witnesses, who positively swore that these ten men were the perpetrators of the Maamtrasna massacre, while a fourth witness swore that some short time previously he overheard four of the ten identified persons talking over amongst themselves iffii bog, if not actually plotting the terrible murder of the Joyce family, 0hiB news created the most extraordinary excitement in the district, and the feeling among the people was one of delight. Some of the country people who saw the witnesses, and learned what they had told, shook hands with them, and ([echired that “it was God's doings that they had seen the gang, and that ijojv honest people could live free from wtVyMtn’ Others declared that the ten men identified were “the biggest devils in the whole country, and that they were glad they had been captured.' It appears that late on the night of August 17th, sometime about 11 o’clock, as nearly as the witness could judge, a farmer living at Capimnacreehan, a townland in the mountainous regions, among which is Maamtrasna, and situated in a wilder district than that village, was awakened by hearing the barking of dogs. He rose from his bed and looked out. He saw six men, whom he well knew and identified, passing along the road in the direction of Maamtrasna. He said that he knew “bad work was going on, or would be going on.” The d was coming from the direction of Derrypaik, which is further from Maamtrasna than is Capimnacreehan, and from the way they were taking he was afraid they might be going to attack his brother’s house, which was one of the first cabins that lay along the path leading to Maamtrasna. He opened the door, crept out of his house, and crawling down a row feezz towards the road, he hid amid the potato stalks. The men passed closed to him, but owing to the darkness of the night, they did not see him. Looking up be had a full view of their faces .As soon as they had gone by and (iTDOteddd a sufficient distance to warrant him leaving his lurking place without peril to his life, he ran lightly through the fields to his brother's house, which he reached before the gang had arrived at that point, they having cdhded by the ordinary path, and he having taken a short cut along the side of the mountains. Once arrived at his brother's house he alarmed the inmates, and having told the news of what he had seen and what he feared, his brother and nephew left their cabin and lying down in an adjoining field, from which they had a full view of the road, saw the six in^ pai^, and having gone a short distance, enter a cabin belonging to a farmer whom the three watchers knew. In a few minutes ten men issued from the house, the party now consisting of the first six men and four others, who had evidently been by arrangement awaiting them. The cabin was the appointed rendezvous of the assassins. The witness, who clearly saw the faces of all the men, who proceeded in the direction of Maamtrasna, not, however, taking the direct road, but for sake of concealment from observation, lurking along a tortuous pathway through fields and bog, for within 200 yards of each side of this circuitous track. There was no hesitation. Hastening on, the witnesses hurried along the shorter road, and when they had reached Joyce's cottage they lay down under the shelter of a bush that grew at the end of the yard belonging to the cabin, soon the assassins arrived, and walked up to the ill-fated house. They removed the door from its hinges, and entered the lonely cabin, wherein, unconscious of danger, the defenceless family slept. Then began the work of murder. The trembling listeners beneath the bush heard the heavy blows, and the cries and ino^s of the victims of this fiendish carnage. Dreading lest they should be discovered and done to death, knowing that they, three unarmed men, had no chance of coping with ten armed desperadoes, and, sick with terror at the fearful slaughter perpetrated almost before their eyes, they fled from their place of concealment and returned to their homes. The fourth witness has m.tdc an information, in which he swore that four of the men had been overheard by him deciding to murder Joyce. They were standing in a bog, and he who they were and clearly heard what they said, All these witnesses were examined by Mr. Brady and Mr. Gardner, In the ' lu-esouce of the ten persons who were, at that time, in Galway Jail. The ten prisoners, Myles Joyce, Pat Joyce, Thomas Joyce, Patrick Casey, Michael Casey, John Casey, Anthony | lik*lheii, Mm’tiu Joyce, and Thomas Casey, charged with the murder of the Joyce family of five persons, at Maamtrasna, wore on October 2nd, removed from Galway, where they were initially eeued after their arrest, to Dublin. The removal was preliminary to their trial in Dublin, by a special jury, at the commission which opened on the 1st of November. On October 16th, in the Commission Court Dublin, the city grand jury brought in a true bill against the ten persons who stood charged with the murder of John Joyce, Michael Joyce, Bridget Joyce, Margaret Joyce, sen., and Margaret Joyce, jun., at Maamtrasna, county Galway, on August 18, 1882.

Arraignment of the Prisoners

At the Commission Colr^t, Green Street, Nov. Ist, before Mr. Justice Barry, Patrick Joyce (ShanvalleycahiU) Patrick Joyce (John), Thomas Joyce (Pat), Michael Casey, Thomas Casey, Patrick Casey, John Casey, Martin Joyce, Milob Joyce, and Autliony Philbm were aiTai;'iied on an indictment charging then/— ‘ For that they, on the ISth August, 1882, feloniously, wilfully, and of malice aforethought, did kill and murder John .loyce, Michael Joyce, Bridget Joyce, Margaret Joyce, senior, and Alargaret Joyce, junior.’

Though known that the prisoners would only be formally arraigned j>nor to tlie adjouriiineiit of the cascjiibr a week, the atino.st anxiety was evinced to catch a glimpse of them as they came into the dock li oni the cells undeineath the court. The court was crowded. The pr^boners had improved lu appearance since their arrest. Tiie regularity ‘'bf prison life liad given them a sfhartor aspect, anti tney hhd paid much attention to their drkss, which was that ot respectable peasants. One of them was an (lid giey-haircd man. But none of them exhibited the wild 'umuntanieer mien they showed when tf.keri into custody in Connemara. The Clerk of the Crow u having*' asked thepiisoners did they plead guilty or not guilty to the IndictiiJ exits ? Mr. iStritcli (counsel for tlie defence) remarived that some of them did not klioNV’jOuglish. Mr. ^us^ice Burry — There oiiglit to be an interpreter. An inlerjireter was^sworn, •and the prisuuors being anaigued on the separate iiidictmenA of luurdermg John Joyce, replied fadlae of them per ae in the negative, and others, through the inteiynetr’M', that they were nbt gpilty, and knew nothing of it. They were next riTaigned ijeriatim on tiie charges of murdering Michael Joyce, 'Bridget Joyce, Margaret Joyce, senior, Margaret Joyce, junior, and in each and all they entered a like plea,

Clerk of the Crown inquired if they were r^ady to bear their cnal? Mr. Bt'-itch-^VVe are not ready for our trial, and I would «ak ycrar lordship to adjourn the case until Monday, Nov. ISth.

Mr. Justice Barry— What has the Crown to say T Mr. Mifc'phy, Q.C. — As my learned friend says that time is required for the^ defence, and as that would be the earliest we could think of having the trial, it is not gitmg too far, if it suits your lordship, to say the 18th,^ Tha trial ^as postponed accordingly, and the prisoners were removed.

Patrick Joyce Convicted and Sentenced to Death

Patrick Joyce, ^ young man, wits indicted before the Special Coii;^iission Court if Dublin on Monday, Nov. IJth, Mr. Justice Barry presiding, ^for the murder^of the Joyce family, Maamtrasna. County Galway, on August 18th. Teu persons are implicated in th^ crjme. Four oi' the Joyces were killed on the spot, and one was so seriously woiyidetl that death resulted next day ; wlAio a sixth, a little boy, was also injured. Tlie terrible tragedy forms so red a page lu the annals of cni'iie 4liat the whole civilised world must feel an interest in its progress and r6snlt|, ixm searches almost in vaiu for a ifoc<l of piivate vGiigeaiice so shocking. It were arranged tiiat the accused mori should be tried separately, Fatiick Joyce was llist pluceil luthcilock, and,

The Attorney-General opened the case lor the Crown at great length. He began by reminding the jury that the very revolting uatfire oj this which hud brought such discredit on the country, made it all the more proper autt uiorivu'cessary th/tt they should keep ilimr minds iii suspiMisc until they bhould have lieaid tliv CMdevjie. Ho also mentioned that the tr;ict of countiy in que-jtion benig known by the name of ‘ the Joyce country,' iv»any of the peojde resident in it boVethatriaTnv, and it wouhl be necessary to carelnll/ distmguiMh tlie peisoi'is of tliut name who would bo rneritionod*' in the case. On the night of Thuisday,ithe 17th of August, a man named Anthony Joyce was awoke by the l»uikj(Ug of his dog. He got up,aud, looking ouV, sdw tli^aies on the road. Going out, he sheltered himself under a wall, ni adduce of the prisoners on the ruafi, and »>tiw sixuieu, whom lie recognised, pass liiiii by. These wore Martin Joyce, Myles Joyce, Patrick Joyce, of Cainiaiiacreca, Tliomas Joyce, Thomas Casey, Anthony PhUbin. The prisoner v«bt the bar, Paiiiok Joyces of ^^hauvaUyc.itiill, was not amongst them. Anthony Joyce thought it prudent to go on t (4 the house of his brother, which was further on towards Maaiiitrasiia, keeping the sl'C lue^'u view all the time, lie woke UiJ his brother and his broiler's son Patrick. These three watched the six men as they went along, andata place called Derry tiiey Huatr them Joined by four others, who came out of the house of a man named Casey. TlAso were the prisoner at the bar, and John Casey, Patrick Case^ and Mic,hael Casey.* Ofl these ten men Patrick Joyce identified nine, but the tenth iiirfh be dj^ not ^entify, this liemg P,^itlbin, who had been in the habit of bgin^ absent in England fed' consMcrablo intervals of tune, and ther^re was not so yell known. The Attora^-Coneral here mentioned that the 1 ‘cason of the i igilance andfinxiety of Anthony Joyce about his brother’s place iWt\j night was that i>revi Asly his brother's sheep had been cut and slashltd with knives, and hi s in are and foal with ropes round their flWks had bqfn thrown into LoTigli Mask— that lake which hud concealed more than one horrible secret. Thetliree men who re there watehing saw the ten take the roa<^to*Maamtrasna for a little more than lig,lf the distance. Then a stragg}ij^^illage intervened, and the ten mi^iniwiated from the straight road, as if to avoid the chance of observation The three Joyces went on straight, and at the iiouse of John Joyce saw the ten men. .Some forced the door and went in. Then they heard shoi/S and screams and a woman's cry. Soon tliero was the stillness of death, and then the watchers fledteijo^stncken? Jiut this was not tli^rfii^r^ideTice to go to the juiy, for there had appeared in this case, as in many others, •an absence# of criminal fidelity on the jiart of one of the men iyijdicate^ in the criino, and Antliony Philbin had volunteered a statement, and accordingly lift name had been that iriornin^» stnifk out of the iiirtictinent. Anthonv iUiftbiu was a relative of one of tlie SIX men, Thomas Casey, and on that Thursday^^ night Thom'ah Casey came and l(drkliim that lie wanted him to go to Deiry with him, as they weie tt» meet some of the boys there, and he went. Accoalingi to the evidence cf Anthany<’hiP)in, the prisoner at the bai h»l a revolver that night. He saw him enter the house of the Joyces with that revolve"^ and lie heard shots and screaims. He (Anthony Philbiii) then fled,iiis he stated, from the scene of this dreadful crime. There might ajipcar to be a discrgr»a»JJ between this evidence and that ol l^e three Joyces who wire watching; for they did aot say they heard shots, but the fact was that where they stood»a8 had been proved by actual experience since, the report of a revolver lirotf within the house would «oand only os a dull thud. The AMorn^-(Jeneral described the horrible condition in which the bodies of the kimates of the house were found-— the head of the house In the.outer room, naked and dead on the clay floor, with bullet wounds from a revolver ; his wife also murdered^in the bed ; and in an pin%r room the aged grandmotlferaiid a boy and girl battered to death ; and another boy, a child^left for dead on the floor. The last-named is a'ecovenug. The object of the murderers^lamly was to destroy evidence against themselves by destroying the whole family. On the following Sunday Constable Bnok arrested tlte prisoner at the bar in his house. At that tune Bnen was not aware that anybody else was to be arrestiAl, and that Anthony Philbui was a party to the transaction at all, but a guilty conscience impelled the prisoner to ask the constable when he was taking him to Cong, wherejthe case was to be investigated, wiicthe^ he had heard that Philbiu was arrested. The constable said he had not, and the prisoner at the bar then made this remarkable observation — ‘ 1 suppose if he is ho will be taken by the Cappaghdutf men to Ballmrobe.' Cappaghdufl Police fitation was the nearest to Phil bin’s rcsidencet Another iiiipoitant lact in the case was that Constable Finn on searching the prisonei’s bouic that Sunday found a pair of tiouscrsofthe prisoner's damp from recent washing, but yet induuitions of blood were found om. them by the analyst. On Thursday, the 24tli of August, the sub-inspector fouud* rolled up and .stucK in the tnatch over the prisoner's bed a croth bag such as is generally u-sed to keep a revolver in, but the revolver itsclf was not found. Between thiJ Thursday night and the aunday, h^wevei, there had been ample tune to do away with that. In conclusion tiie AtXoi iiey-General called on the jury, in the quaint language of the law, ‘A true veidict to give according to the evulciice, so help you God.’

Evidence hn¥ing been given by Anthony Joyce and others in suppoit of the At^rney-Geiieral s statement, Anthony aiiilbin and 'Hi onms Casey, wlio* were onginally^^ndicted for complicity in the crimes, w'eie jiroduced as witnesses tor the Cr(?vvii, and gave material evidence against tliepiisoAer«t the bar.

Anthony Pliilbui, the man who first * turned Queeu’#evidonoe,’«eQmed sullen and dejected. He deposed: I live, at Cappagliduir. I iiad been in Northumberland nine or ten years, and cam* l^k to CapmgliduH’ about four yeais ago. 1 have a brother-in-law named Thomas Casey, who lives at (j^^nsaul. On the night of Thursday, therlTth «>f August, he met me a little distance trol^ my own house, which is live or six miles ftom Maamtrasna. I had been in the early part 0 / the night at Patrick Quinn's wake at Churchlield. When I went home from the wake I remained a short time 111 tire hoi^se and then went out on' my land to see if there was Soy trespass. Then I met Tom Casey about eighty yards from i]r'y hojjse. We went towards Dej;ry, and met three men as we were crossing the river at Cappaghnacreevagh. The three men were, Myles Joyce, Pat Joyce, and his son Tom. liie live of us went on together a short distance, when we met Malgin Joyce. It was then between eleven and twelve o'clock. They went into Michael Casey's but I remained in the yard. When'lhey came out of Casey's four men joined them, Patrick Casey, John Casey, Michael Casey, and Patrick Joyce— Is the prisoner at the bar the Patrick Joyce who came out Df Casey’s ? Yes. After you came out of Casey’s in what diiection did you go ? We crossed a ditch into a field, and then went on to a street and a house that 1 did not know. Did you go together or were you vseattered ? Sometimes together and sometimes not, as we had to cross ditches. The man that was keeinng my company rlostly was young Tom Joyce. Had you any arms with you ? Did you see tliem with anyone? I saw a revolver with Patrick Joyce, the prisoner at the bar. When ’iliey came to the house they ^broke in the door. What men did you "see break ip the door? I’atrick \asey, of Derry, Myles Joyce, of Cappaghiiacreevagh, and Patrick Joyce, the prisoner. Did you see the three men you have named go into the house? I did. Are you able to state wlWle yem were there whether any others weltt into the house? Not during the time I was standing there. After they entered I heard screeches and heard a shot hied, and I gbt frightened and I turned and went away. Did you go by the same way you came ? No, th ^ nearest road I 6ros:;ed ; I broke into the field when I was a bit away. I made for hom^* Did ‘your brother-in-law come away with you? I did not wait-^jr him or any other body. I was arrested on the Saturday night or Sunday morning. Had you s'ien^ihe prisoner Patrick Joyce at all before you were arrested and after they broke fri the door lliat night ? No, .1 did not wait to see anything. Did you see your brother-in-law Tom Casey the day? I did not. Or any of the parties at all. No. Cross-examined Mr. Malley : You were brought before the maristrates at Cong ? I was. And tlmn did’ you hear the three Joyces— Anthony, Johk, and Patrick— tell tbeff story of following you and the nine others to the house of the murdered Joyces 7 Yes, heard setme of it. Did you not hear the whole story? No, I did not. They did not tell what I knew. Did you hear the whole story told by theiro? They did not tell th«^ truth. In what? In saying 1 went in along with the men into Joyce’s house. Did they toll the truth when they said they saw you going into CasCiV's Jiouse? No, it was not. Where did you remain wh6u the others where ip Casey’s house,?. A little below the house, about teikijards ; it was I ot more than that. Did you keep at that distance from the nine men all the Miy going to Maam trash. t ? [No " answer.] I)o you understand what I am saying? Yes, And why do yof not answer?"' was up to them sometimes, and Bometiiries l was five or six yai>is behind them when a ditch or a strauin came between us. How tar were you from tlio men who broke in the door ? About thi ee or four yards, d but .some men were standing between me and the door. Did you remain imort’m door ? 1 d id not ; 1 moved away i>useemg them about to break iri the door. Now when yon were charged before the magistrates did you cross-exaniiiie these Crown witnesses to prove that you were not there at all ? I asked them a few questions. Was it to show that you weie not there at all? [No answei.] Was it not to deferia yourself asked those question ? It was feVerybody was asking them questions as well as me. WerB>you not atritid you would be hanged for this crime? To be sure 1 was ; 1 was afraid of being charged of such a crime. It was because of this you swore against thi^f man in the dock ? It was. I had nothing to do with it ; I did no harm, and I was non going to be hanged for the crimes of other men.

Thomam Casey, the buher approver, was then examined by the Attorney General, You were one oththe persons charged with having been concerned in the murder of. the Jayce ^^mily ?— Yes. You have now consenteef to'^jivei evidence on behalf of the Crown ? 1» have. Are you any relation to Antliony Phllbm, the last witness t Yes. 1 am his brother-m-law. You mefr Philbm that night ? Went to him. Yowhad conversation with him? Yes, and went to Deiry in coinVMiytwith him, anU met three men — Mila» Joyce, Pat nek Casey, aixd Patrick Joyce! We afterwards met another man and the Six of us went to Michael Casey’s house. Five of us went in there, and Phil bin reclamed outside. When we came out we ^ere met by four other men and af* ter wards by two others J — Who wele these last two who joined your iwii ty of ten the names are Patrick Kelly and MichaeJ Nee. § I havewiot seen Kelly since that night : I saw him last summer for the hrst time. •Have you seen | Nee since? No ; he is, i know, n pedlar, and ab^ut a year bctore thishe^ave me a revolver to keep lor him. Had you been talking to Patncl^ Caseiy befoie that night ol^he occurrence ? Yes, the day belore.^ V^s itattcrwards you wbnt toChilbm ? It was. I did not go 1^0 the house. The men burst in the cSnif. It was ve?>' dark when they went in, and I saw a light shmiiig inside afterwards. The light was seen a few minut#%iftcr they went iii. *1 afterwards heard the cries of jieople in dissii’ess. I could not tell the number of these people who weri^pying out. ^ I heard one shot afld then ran away. I have known Patrick Joyce, the pri^ner at the bar for a long time. He was one of the men that broke into the hou|e. •! did not know the Joyces who wore igurdered at allCross-examined ; TJie last time you were here you were inroPWocks charged with the murder yourself? I was. Have you given this information to save your life V I have. At John Joyce’s house, you heard the screams and the shots? Yea. And you waited till the butchery was over ? Yes.

Alter other witnesses had beenexamined^he littlifboy, Patrick Joyce, thcrwiWttrvivcu’ of the nnlortunato family, was put upon the table to give his evidence, til id his app^rance created a painful sensation. The marks of the wounds on his head whicli tlie murderers onus relatives hud mflictedwere distinctly visible.** Although the child, who is^bout 11 years of age, appeared to have beeif well cared lor, and was comfortably clothed in a new suit of tweed, yet he litftl a most frightened and bewildered l«ok, which it was pitiable to behold. .Mr. Murphy, C^.C. : Does the child apeak English ? The interXU'eter ; No, ^ : 'Sheii usk him has he gone to ciiapM ever ? The question was put, mid the child answered ; No, I have not. Have you learned your catechism ?* No, I%aYe not. The Attorney-General. Do you know what it is toAell a lie ? Yes. Do you say your I Iirayers ? No. Have you ever been at school ? ^o,« sever. Do you know where you w^l go to if you tell a Ifb No, 1 do nol. The Attoipey-General : I can examine the witness no further. His Lord^ip : No. The scars of the wounds inflicted on the lad's head on the occasion* in question were then ^loiuted out to the jury, and hc*lras tiiken out of court under the care of a policeman. The case for the Crown beclosed, Mr. O’Malley procceded>to address the jury for the^efence. He urged that no motive had been suggested for the murder, bui that there was evidence of ill-feolipg oi>the part of the [Jofee* witnesses towards the pi?soner, whom they would accuse in order to gratify their malice. He also relied on the improbability or the story told by these men, that out of mere cuno.sity they would follow ten men at night for miles, and while identifying every one of the men were themselves unobsei ve#. He also remarked on the improbability that revolver shots could not be distinguished in the dead of night at a distAice of fifty or sixty yards from the house where they were fired, and the door of which was open. He farther asked whether the mo.st likely persons to commit the crime wer^ not those who now iierceived the necAsity of saving themselves by turning approvers, namely, Anthony Philbin and Thomas Casey. AsforJ’hil bin's story that he went out late at night to see if cattle weie tresI>assiiig, that was imiirobable ; and it was remarkable that the man who profesised a desire to go home early ft*om a wahfc wowld afterwards go off on the invitation of another on some evil mission in the dead of night. As lor the lU'isoner, it lie were an older man and had grown -u}) children, they could be examined to prove that he didn^t leave I his own home that night, but being young*man with a young w^fe she was the only jicrson wiio^ouid prove that fact, and yet the lawTorbade her to be examined on belialt of her husband. Her mouUi wasclosod, and the prisoner was thereloi% helpless. Ho appealed to the jurf not to place themselves in a position in which ^hey might afterwards haye to reproach themselves with having rashly fastened the punishineiit of guilt on an iimocent iiuni.

Evidence was called to show ill-feeling on the partV the witnesses towards the prisoner, and then the case foath9 T*rison|;' closed.

Mr, Muiphy, Q.C., addressed the* jury on the jiaiiy/f the Crown, contending that the prisoners had acted in obedience to the orders of a secret orgabisation that had spilAd torrents of blood through the country.

Mr. Justice •ilarry iitoceeded on Wednesday to charge the jury, whose indeiiendence and character, education and intelligence, he said, could nolPb» sjjppassed imthe city. It was unnecessary, therefore, for him to occupy their time in making any observatioii to enlist their attention or iinpr^s ujian tlifim the Bolemnity of the duty whiffli th«law cast opontliem. Neither would he^expatiale upon the enormity of the crime, whicl^ he mi^'ht say, without any exaggeration, staitled the civilised world. Ilut the more enormous the crime, the moi^ should they hesitate hefore* they affixed* the coiiseqr eri^'es and the infamy of it upon an individual. No motive hail been proved by the Crown to exist on tne pai^ of the prisoner, or, indeed, of any other jieraon, to commit thia.dreBdful crime. There was no doubt that in a ca.se of uncertainty, K'lio motive could be discovered, it was a reason why a Juiy shoiVkl require some patent proof of the fact. The peculiarity of this case was that the crime itself was in its circumstances so terrible and so enoimous that it was equally improbable that any one man alone should have committed it. Murders were com^nitted for private vengeance ; they were committed for plunder ; they were committed to get out of the way a rival competing in some walk in life with the murderer. But here was an entire family massacred in cold blood, and when they spoke of motive, they were immediately lost in mystery and uncei'tamty. The only question for them would be—and it was a m^^it im- ])Oitant que.slion for their consideration —whether the motive was not to be traced in that most remarkable piece of evidence given by tiie man Thomas Ca&ey,rone of the so-called approvers, when in answer to the question. Why •did he bring Philbiri to Derry, he said ‘Byorderrf. When ‘a.sked from whom he got the orders, 4ie said, ‘ I got the orders fi'om Pat Casey. He was one of the men who broke in the door.’ He could not help thinking that in tlie annals of trials in this country there ftad never been given before a judge and jury a more remarkable p^ece evidence than that. It was for them to S£ty w’hcther in that mysterious piece of evidence they could trace out any motive for whoever committed tli,y3 crime. His lordship then carefully reviewed the evidence given by tlie witnesses tor the ‘^Crowii, and observed that if thq,^Joyces invented their story to ^^y and hang ten innocent men, their crime would be mlinitely worse than thrft of the men who committee’, tide atrocious crime ; but if they did not, would it be at all likely that they \iould pick ojut ten persons not immediately residing in the immediate neighbourhood or in one locality, yVsut, living in different districts ? His lordship tnen i*eferred to the evidencqqf the ajiprovers, and concluded as follows; —It w^ the obvious Intention of the aeeassiiia to slaughter the entire foinll^. afid it was oi^iy by the merciful interposition of Providence that the life of poor child whom they saw put op the table was save^ The ol<band the young, the dying and the dead, all lay huddled together in a mefat horrible manner, and one of the victims was eaten by some anin^al, it was supposed a pm. A scene so horrible had never been described before in ^court^of justice in any civilised country. Blit, however much the jury might desire the guilty persons to be brought to justice, they should recollect that the law required no victim. If the evidence hah satislled tlio^i-rnnds that th^. prisoner was guilty, th ^ were bound to convict him. If they had any doubt cki the evidence, it mujr' be the doubt of firm, natural, reasonable men. lie had no doubt they would dotheir> duty as-bccMftr highly eminent citizens ofthat great city ; thd-t they would discharge their duty between the prisoner ani/the country faithfully, calmly, impartially , and regardless of consequences, and might God direct them to<* pight conclusion.

The jury then retired, and alter an absence of eight minutes return|!?*ftito court with a verdict of Guilty. The prisoner having been asked the usual question whether he had anything to say why judmnentand execution should not be awarded to him according to law, answered with apparent calmness, ‘I am not guilty.’

Mr. Justice Barry Uien proceeded to pass sentence, and said PatirJX t/\>yce, after a most patient trial, a jury of your countrymen Jiave convicted you of the crime of murder, a crime committed by you and your confederates under circumstances so appalling thaf l cannot endure to recapituh^'e them in form. You have been convicted of the^urder of John Joyce ; in fact, ycu murdered him, his wife, his mothei, his son, and his daughter, and it wa«. >oiily the accidental interposition of Pim'idence which prevented you adding another victim to that scene of slaughter in the person of that poor child who ^as produced here yesterday. It is not fo^‘ mcboioY^ — indeed, it would be useless— to attempt to awaken you to a sense of the position in which yourenorE.ous criJninality has placed you. Mercy in this world, mercy at the hands of men, you hav4pone to expect ; but you shall have wh^ you did not permit your poayrictims— time to “endeavour to make your peace with that God whom you have so grievously offended ; ana are told that even sinners whose crimes are equal to yours will not turn to Him in vain. It onV remains for me now to pronounce tthe sentence. thAjj^readful sentence^ of the law i anq dreadful ae yonr crime Iks been, I An not ashamed to say that 1 feel <here his lordship's voice quivered witti emotion, and he .wept)-Jfeelded|ly the position of a man who "s sentencing his fellow man to death. Haviig assumed the bhick cap, he said ; — The sentence and judgment of the court is, and 1 do adjudge and® order, that you, Prfbrick Joyce, be taken froi{iL the bar of this court where you now stand flb the^lace whence you carafly and that you be removed Heilllapssty’a prison in Galway, and that you be taken on Friday, thp^||tli day of Deoaniber, to the common pace of execution within the walls of such jmson, aud that you ke tjien and tlwe Ininged by the neck ^itil you are do^, and your body shall be buried ^ the precincts of the prison in winch you shall have lieen Iq^^j^nidnod, and may the Lord liavo mercy on your soul. — The prisoner listened witli fixed attention to the sentence, but betr^ed no feeling except in biting his lips ^ he was removed from the dock to the cell.

Trial of the Second Prisoner, Patrick Casey

'^ilkrjtfrial of Patrick Casey, one of the men cnarged with the murder of the Joyce family at Maamtrasna, was commenced at Dublin on Nov. 16th. The same counsel appeared as at the first trial, and several of the witnesses examined in the jirevioiis case were called by the prosecution. Tlie evidence given made it probalde that two of the worst oMiHvmMig— the men who in all probability idanned and directed the murder — were still large. Their names were mentioned by one of th# informers as Nee and Kelly, aud it is supposed that they we*e leaders in a secret society, whoso object wsy^lhe assassination of all oVmoxious persons.

Johfl Joyce was the hrst witness examined. ITo deposed to being aroused on the night the ITtli of August by Isis brother Anihoiiy, who liv8d a short di.sfcance from him, and to their going out with \fitness’ son to see the six men whom Anthony had observed on the roaiL anfl wHom they followed to MtccjaelTasey's house, and afterwards to John Joyce’s. Witness and his son and Anthoiy went to a corner of the yard and coiicealea themselves behind a little bush. They saw the ten men go mto the yard, and make a drive at the door. Soigje went into the house, and BoiTW rflimined outside. Witness heard stroiiH voices calling and screeching from the house. — Patfick Joyce, son of the last witness, gave, conoborative evidence,®

Anthony fhilbin, one of the appi-ovors, repeated hia former evideace.

^Thomas Casey (the second approver), OTOther-in-law of Philbin, was next examined. He said he had known the prisoner, Patrick Casey, for fifteen or sixteen years. The night before the murder, Casey told him to go towards Derry, and bring Philbin with him. I brpu^t Philbin. tolQ him we had to gm We then took the shortest cut towards Derry, and met the others. Witness then detailed Ahe route taken by the party to Maamtrasna, ^posing that two men, not in custody— Patrick Kelly I and Michael Nee-— joined *them on the I way. lie had known Nee, who asked ihimonce lo take charge ofarevolTOr for him, abd Nee told him who Kelly was. Kelly, Nee, Pat Joyce, Miles Jo^^e, and the prisoner were the first to cross over into the yard, and go to the door, which was then burst open. Pat Joyce, Miles Joyce, and the prisoner went in. He was not sure of Kelly and Nee, but he did not soerthem in tlieyard again.— Cross-examined*by Mr. Stritch : Did you or did you not know that you were going to doanythmg wrong to John Joyce that night?— 1 did not know what they were going to do to him. Had you any suspicion ? — Well, 1 won’t say anything about that, because I do not know. Do you expect the jury to believe*thift? — 1 cannot help that. Can you make me tell the truth? Mr. iStritch : I don’t expect I can. — Witness : j And then make me eat it. Do you want me to compose it all over again, and to tell a lie? If you had kuowf! it was to kii^ Joyce would you have given hiig warning?— Indeed I wouid not. Would you have t^d the police ? — I would not. You Kept the secret locked 111 ) your breast from the ‘29th of June until the present?— I did not know anything^ tlmt was going to take place. I was speaking with Philbm while we were in custody. I iirst heard last week that he ,would give evidence for the Crown. I did not hear that his life would be saved on that account, or that it was in the power of the Crown to do it. Did thril influence you to give evidence also to save your life?-»I ao not know wliether it will be done Cjf not. — *-Would you give the information for the purpo^iOf saving your neck? — That IS HOC a faij question. — (Laughter.) —The Attorney-General rebuked any spirit of levity being sh<fWn®in so serious a case. — WUmess : If jmu were dragged into ‘a heue of wattfr’ by two or three men, maybe you would sooner bo out of it than stay there. Mr. Stritch : Is it to save your life that"yHL dife giving ttiis evidence ? — I would like to save my life, aud so would everybody. ^Answer me * Yes’ oro^ No.'— I won’t answer you.— Why have yau toM us now about the two other men? — Why wouldn’t I tell about Kelly and Nee ? 1 knew they were the authors of it. (^citemcnt in court.)— The Attorney-{^ueral : Now we have got it out. There is the root of the confederacy.— Mr. Stptch (to ’Witness) : How (\9 vou know that?— Witness: By the way A was talking. Mr. Malley, Q.C., lifter Addressing the jury on bel(]alf of the prisoner, called witnesses to prove an alibi . — Mary Oasey, cousin 'of the prisoner, said she -^s in his house on the night of the murders, and he was there. He got a pain in his back early in tlie evening, and witness and her mother were engaged during the night in atten^jling him and giving him warm milk. He could not possibly have left the house that night.— Tlie prisoner’s mother, Julia Case)”, deposed that on the night of the murder Cl 6 spent the night at homo. — This closed the case for the delence, and Mr. atntch having addressed the jury on behalf of the accused, and Mr. Murphy, Q.C., having repbed, the Court adjourned. On Nov. 16th Mr. Justice Barry summod up the evidence, and the jury, after an absence of eleven minute, returned into court with a verdmt of guilty, and the prisoner was sentenced to be hanged at Galway gaol on the 15th of December.

Trial of the Third Prisoner, Myles Joyce

c Myles Joyce, a man of most repjilsive nppearance?t was on November 17th indieted for the murder of Margaret Joyce the younger, on tne 18th of August, at Maamtrasna.

The Attorney-General stated the case against the prisoner. The gjjrl whose death they were inquiring into was only fourteen years of agi 2 . So terrible was the circumstances of the Crimo, so horrible an(l revolting the cruelty shown by the murderers, that he would probably best consult the nubile ear and their own by allowing the details to be eliciifed in evidence. He (the Attorney- (reneral) then wont into the case afgainst the prisoner, from which it appeared he was one of the six < Lien who first went to Casey’s house. •Having described what, accoMing to the Crown witnesses, hacf tal^n place till the Joyce family had been murdered, he said that the after the cri me was committed the murderers made off to their own homes, sqnm of them having wives and children drtueir own, there to remain till once more the same secret orgamzetion whidfi had sent them upon this hellish errand once mof() called upon them to repeat tt^e horrors h the vengeance which they had executed on the Joyces u'^n some family equally helpless as the Joyces. Whe^ describing the scene which presented itself l!6 Collins, who first saw the dei^d bodies, he (theAttor< ney-General) could scarcely speak of this part of the case without emotionee no (fae, indeed, <sxcept it ^were some anonymous scribbler outside, could. In condusioni he said it was not one mo* ment too soon that tbe arms of justice proved long enough* td reach ^jihe pypetrators of these outrages, and that jurors should b« forthcomingfirm enough todotheirduty betweenraieaccusedaiid the country. Evidence for the' Croj;m was then given. Mr. Byan, C.E., who had prepared the maps of the district, deposed to the, details conn^e^l with them. ^ Anthony Joyce, JoJin Joyce, sefa., and John Joyce, iun., who had tracked thyparty to the house of the murdered family, re-stated the facts connected with their eventful journey. * In the course of the evidence of Jbhn Joyce, sen., it transpired that tht mnrdered man had been a relative first cousin, and that the prisoner now occupying the dock stood in the same relationship to him, a statement which caused great sensation in court, Anthony Philbin, one of the approvers, was examined, and his evidence was in effect exactly the same as that given in the two prBvious ^ases. After his cross-examination by Mr. A Juror asked him, Why did you go with Thomas Casey whenj,he went for you that niglfl ? The witness, To oblige my broth cr-m-law. A Juror, Did you ask him what he wanted you fr>r 7 The Witness, He said he \:^^nted to see some of the boys, and I started no more questions. The Attorney-Generg^l, Nt ; that was enough. Next day, the 18th of jjr^ 9 vember, the trial wasT resumed, when an attempt was made by the pnsoner’S relatives to establish an but this Entirely fiiiled. Mr. Malley made an excellent ad* dress for prisoner’s Vlefetce, Jtiut the charge was too well establishedTto ^nake the jury in their desire to do justice, after the judge had ^lysumcined up the evidence, the jury retired to consider their verdict. When they returned to their accustomed seat, they had fomnd prisoner ‘ guilty,* And the judge proceeded to pass senten^tipcA. him in a similar manner as he had tlone in the cases of the tw6 previous prisoners. The execution of Myles Joyce was fixed for the 15th of December, the salne day as was already decided upon,, for the exQi qutiq|| Qf the t;wo other prisoners,

Trial of the Fourth Prisoner, Patrick Casey

At the Dublin Comn^ssion on Nov. 20tb, Michael ^asey yv\ placed upon his trial for the murder of Margaret Joyce, aged 80 years, «it Maamtrasna. The prisoner was 65 years of age, but looked older in consequence of the whiteness fff his hair* and beard. *He' had regular features, and waa more prepossessing in hia appearance* than*any of the other prisoners already tried. Upqp be«ig placed fli the dock he looked anxiously around him, and remained leanTII^n tlic bar wiftclung the Judge until he was told by the Attorney-(ieneial that he must sit down. Thh same counciPlIkppefired for the ]iro>#cution and the same for the defence as in the il^er cases. The prisoner was the father of one of the oilier t^iiiised, and it was fVom his house the four men joined the six on the night of tJie muider. The prisoner did not understand Engl 4 |^i, and all the evidence liad to be inter- |)ictgd tf» him. The prisoner frequently interrvyated the witnesses to the effect that tliey might say what they liked agi^^Jiini, but that they did not see him theie.

The Attdraey-Gencral, in opening the case for the Clown, said it was at the prisoner’s house the whole of the party of the assassins, except two, a.ssembled on the night of the minders. The learned gentleman called the attention of the to the evidence which showed the 'exflMWPWPW^ii con.spiracy of some secret organisation, which claimed the rightto hold the livcs^f the people of the district in their hands, Kelly and Nee, rrtio seemed to have been the leaders of tneexpecfttion, were still at large, and possibly Avcve the»^iaunting the shores of Lou{di Mask, which had earned an I unholy^atid^cnminal notoriety. Evidence was then given.

A nthony Jo^.i repeated his tastimony describing the*ioiite taken by the party, including M;j-haeK'asey. He w'as crossexamined as to the persons he saw at the wake on the bodies of the niuidcred Jieoplj. jie #d not see the prisoner there.*He never heard anyth mg against him. He was a quiet man. Me'tlier he nor the priiihner evw left the townland since they wci p bora.

Jo^ Joyce identified the prisoner as one of the party of ten. When crossexamined he ji#v»tiadicted the approver Philbin irfbim iiarticular, namely, tbat six men entered Casey’.: house including Philbin ; but Philbin swote that he did not enter tjje prisoner’s liouse at all, but remained outside when the others went in. In this centradiction he was corroborated by young Patrick Joyce, ^00 of the last witness, ^he approver Philbin was called, and gave in detail an account of how the i^x men met and proceeded to the house of the pnsoner. There they had a con.sultatjon. He did not go inskffe, hut shortly afterwards some men came out of the linsonePs liouse, and they 'proceeded to thcj r^idence of the doomed lismily. Witness declined to swear whether two other men joined them on the way, but he positively iword* that three of the assassins broke iii the door, |nd entered Joyce’s hou.se. He heard screams and two shots, and then ran aw^y.

This witness was subjected to a rigofr ous cross t^amination, which failed to shake his testimony, and the case was then adjourned till next day Nov. 21at.

MIOimEL CASEY WITUDUAWB HIS PLEA OP ‘NOT OUILTY.'

When Michael Casey was put forward for the resumption of his trial on Nov. 2l3t., Mr. Malley, Q.C., on his part, at once withdrew tlie plca^f not guilty, and asked that the oilier four untiied prisoners should be placed in the dock.

When the jury had answered Ibeir names, the old man, Michael Casey, was put forwai d.

Mr Malley, Q.C., said : My Lord, I have now to withdraw the plea of * not guiltjgon the part of the prisoner, and to ask your Lcrdsliip to peiniit the other prisoners to be piodiiced in the dork.

'I’he Clerk of the Crown.— Does the prisoner plead guilty to thisjuulictment? — Yes.

The Intel jireter having coinmunicat-* ed this question to^the firisotier, an answer in the ufLrmatn % was returned.

By his Lordship’s direction, the remaining four priboneis were then put forw'ard. « 

It had l<^en intimated to the governor of the prison that the attendance of the other lour prisoners*would be required in court, ftn* it’ was customary to bring only one of the prisoners dovi'>j daily. There were not many jicrsons in couil; at the time. Martin Joyce, Thomas Joyce, John Casey, and J'atnck Joycft fi’at), w'ere then put foiward. Panick Joyce %nll John Casey were men of* about twenty thirty years of age. The latter was mide to stand in front of the dock, as the #udge desired to make some observations to hiiu* was the man who cross-examined the witnesses who tracked the«iiiui-deterE^ befoie the magistrates, and the witnesses stated that he was a quiet litttc man, who would not do anybody any harm was let alone. H e was a man of middle statiue, and*in appearance like a mechanic. He had seen more of tlm world than the others, who bore all tlfe chyacteristics of peasantry from the extreme West. Martin Joyce was the perBon who joined Philbm on the road to the meeting, before the murder, at Michael Casey'^ house, and Patrick Joyce (Pat), the additional name being given to diBtiiiguish ] 2 um from the other, were men about 40, VMth unprepossessing features. In the background stood the tall tigure of Michael Casey, aged 65. His tlrm, straight Matures, sharp piercing epes, and white hair, struck every one who saw him when put on his trial. The 'live prisoners presented a lytiful aspect as they stood awaiting sentence in the midst of a gjpup of stalwart warders and policemen. When the fom entered together, they glanced mquinngly at Casey, who was these helore them, as it for some explanation or hint, and in a low tone a few words in Irish passed between them.

FIVIS PRISONEBS PLEAD GUILTY AKD ABB SEMlI^CED TO DEATH,

On Tuesday, Nov. 21 st, the llnal scene of the tnal of the Maaiiitrasna murderers was enacted in Gieeii. .street, Courthouse, after Mr. Justice Barry and special jurors of the city of Dublin had been eight days investigating the dreadful details of the massacre, and in the result the law was fully vindicated, th' eight persons indicted being seiileucc( to death in Galway gaol on the 15th of December.

The Clerk of the court diiected the interpreter to inform each ot the prisoners separately that tlieir counsel had ‘pleaded guilty on their behalf, «Bnd to inquire if ffney acquiesced. In each case tliere was practically the same reply, that they were gnilty.

Mr, Mallcy, Q.C.— My Lord, in the presence of your Lordshii*, I apply to you for liberty to withdraw the pleas of ‘Not guilty' that liave been put in by them all, and I no% withdraw the pleas of ‘ Not guilty' that have been entered. Now, <'ny J.<ord, the prisoners having thus withdrawn their ^leas of ‘Not guilty,' and liaving pieced ‘ Guilty,' it cioY becomes my duty, on their behalf, to otter a few observations to yourLordf ship, whicli 1 hope, rny Lord*, you, will receive ivith that kindness and consideration which has alibady marked your Lordship's conduct both to myself individuallj'^ a^^i towards every one concerned in these painful trials. After what has transpired dnring the agonising and lengthened investigation of tliese cases, it would be useless for me ^‘.aobserve upon the peculiar features they display, as regards the several nrisouers. The degrees of tparticipaffon and grades of moral guilt, though all fire equally guilty in the eye of the law,

Have been paAnt to the eye of every oT>server of thes^ important trials in the court. The dark ettects of that mysterious influencq'-which by its teiror, and through its instrumei^lity, has its dreadful workiisg upon the fears, and probably through its fears, on the lives of these unfortunate creatures who have heed so cruelly dealt with, o That mysterious influence lias been apparent dming these investigations, and it is impossible to tell to wirat extent it may have been exercised ifpon ea^^h of l^e individuals, who unfortunately Ckme within their reach. Bearing the^jnatters in mmd, and believing that ^e Executive ts ever willing to exercise its prerogative of mercy where that m^v y may be exercised consistent with the public safety and the security of life and praperty, I apfiig^^with all the eamestnesii which the solemnity^ of the occasion and the fearful exigencies of the case reywire, to that better and tender feeling of the Attorney-General, now that he has faithfully exercised theilutiesof hiB high position in having vmdiduted the law and the rights of society upon the most prominent actors in thm^iinful tragedy, that he will exercise what will be a more pleasing task— that of recommending to the consideration of the Crown the lemaining prisoners who have pleaded guilty. 1 nope, my Lord, it is not presumptuous in me to express an expectation that your Lordship will merciluliy endorse i^that recommendation.

His Lordship, addressing the prisoners, said— Michael Casey, Patrick Joyce, Thonias Joyce, John Casey, and Martin Joyce, you admit by the plea of guilty your participation in ene of the most shocking cnmos<that have ever disgraced a civilized community. Y ou have now made the only atonq^nenti.n your powerjto the ottended laws of your coun- a terrible example, and ^an example which I hope will sink deep into the hearts of your fellflw-n^en— n terrible example of the consequence tHjqtning a secret society. It is not impossible, it is not impTobable,^.bat, att your learned and able and faithful counsel has suggested, some at lca.st of you^ upon the dreadful occasion, were led fu tiiat scene of carnage uncqgscious of what was to happen. It is not Impossible, it is not improbable, that’^some of you w6re inducdil to join in the dreadM deed through feelings of terrorism, the apprehension of the con^quences to by any Jury on the evido|oe of the oale between the guilt of any one and the guilt of any other is abMlutely impossible. Those who were proved to have forced open the door of the slaughtered family have been conticted, and their lives are forfeited. No jury capable of ebtimating^evidence could hesitate to hold that tnose who remained outside in the yard whilst tht scen%of oi^rage was being enac^ted within were equally guilty. It ina.% I said, be possible tWh^ftmfhigst some of you who did not taltf^n actual manu^ part, so to say, in tlHSieed, that youmay not have been fully aware of what was intend|d ; but that is the result to those who join* in unlawfti societies, and the oj^rations directed by the organisers of these soYou joined in an unlawful enterprise. There is neflW*^ to dis^nguish you from the others engaged in it. you all appeared to act with a common purpose, and let it be perfectly unlerstood that those who join in unlawful opejatiOns of that kind— each and every one i% responsible lor the act of the o$hCL There is one of you to whom I w(M3r«?ish to make special reference, and I regret that I believe that none of you understand what I am saying. I refer to the case of Jolin Casey, the man now in the dock, who is put forward with the view of my calling attention to his case to what was the evidence given with respect to you, John Casey —4 usethe very ifWmls of the witness — ‘ Fiifirw^r^ quiet little iiiun if you were let alone,’ and you, the quiet, little, well-behavedMian, are now about to receive sentence of death for your participation in that dreadful deed on that night. lx remains only for me now to pass upon you, <ftid each of you, the dreadful sentence of tlie law. As regards the eloquent appeal made on your behalf by your counsel, the acceding to tliat appeal -mm is not with me/ibut with the Executive Governiiient, For myself, 1 shall^nly say that, personally, 1 shall be very glad indeed if those with whom the dc^isiq^ rests will see their way 4o aiinoKiful conclusion. For me it onV remains to pass on you the sentence of the law. His Lordaiiip then, without, h^'ever, %ssumlng the black cap, sentenced the live prisoners to be handled in Galway gaol, on the 15tb of December, the same day as that which was lixei^foi* tHe execution of Patrick Joyce, Patrick Casey, and Myles Jofee, previously 'convicted. •

EXECUTION OF THREE OF THE MAAMTBASNA illUBDERERS, SCENE ON THE SCAFFOLD.

The live men who pleaded guilty, on November 21st, at the Dublip Ooiiiinipsifm, to having assisted in the horrible massacre of the Joyce family at Maamtrasna, were repneved December 12th, the death sentence ^^ssed upon them being commuted to penal servitude for life. The other three prisoners who were sentenced tq iieath for the saiBetcrime were 'executed in ^Iway Gaol on Friday morning, December 15th, Marwood being the executioner. The names of #he doomed men were — Pat Joyce, Pat Casey, and )|yled Joyce. ■ The convicts were aropsed at six o'clock, and shortly afterwards made their confessions to the Rev. Mr. Newell, and iicceived the last sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church. They all refused to eat or drink anything. The^-epresentatives of the press were not admitted to witness the process of pinioning, but from inquiry it was learned that each of the condemned men was pinioned in own cell, and that while Casey and Pat Joyce bore the operation with the greatest firmness, Myles Joyce, during all the time it was proceeding, asserted his innocence of the crime with great vehemence, and resisted Marwood slightly. At a quarter-past eight o'clock, the first of the condemned, Myles Joyce, made his up* pean^fecc. He was su]) ported on each side by warders, and liis arms were pinioned behind him. On seeing the group of press men gathered around the door, he uttered a number of exclamations in the Irish language protesting his innocence. He was followed by Pat Caseyf who did not utter a word, buf walked firmly aloiTg. Last ^f all came Pat Joyce, who duriilg the progress of the tnal attracted attention by the cool ‘manner in which he conducted himself, and who noA# also, on the eve of death, displayedethe same coolness. He was immediately preceded by Marwood, carrying a number •of ropes, and was followed by the Rev. Mr. Greavan, reeating the Litany for the Dying. Pat oyce alone -’'repeated the responses, which he did i| a low but firm voice.

The procession then proceeded t^ourt 200 yiyds to where the scaffold was erecteq in a yard next the one in whictf Walsh was executed. The prisoners, with the exceptfon of Casey, mounted the steps withoift assistance, and were placed in position by Murvspod under the three ropes which were dangling from the cross-tieam. Af|er this was done, Myles Joyce, turning to the knot of spectators, made a number of exclamations in the Irish language to thoMe£«* f(Wt that he was innocent of the crime. The other men did notsay a word. On Marwood going up to Myles Jgyee, to adjust the rope round his noch, he jesisted slightly, ftnd, apparently laboi^^ring under great excitement, made a mo> tion as if to^push him away. The Bev. Mr. Greaven, who had been standing at the firont of ine scaftbld repeating the usual prayers, seeing this, went up close to the unfortuna te man and uttered some BoothiLg advice to hiVn. Joyce fhe< — though he talked loudly all the time— allowed the noose to be put around bis neck, and the othelHwo men permitted a like operd^^ion to be performed in their cases witho\\tthe least resistance. The executioner then drew the white cap or»er Pat Joyce's face, then over Casey’s, and finally over Myles Joyce’s. The latter, however, who continued to talk all the time, most vehemently twisted Ins head in some manner after the^cap had been drawn over his head, and Marwood had again to arrange the noose around his throat, the other two continuing all the time perfectly passive. Myles Joyce e?^en then did not cease speaking, and continued thus : — ' I am going before my God, and I am as innocent as the child unborn. I neither raised hand nor foot against the people. 1 had neither hand, act, or part in the murders.’

At this instant Marwood drew the bolt, and the three men disapp'^ared from view. There was scarcely a quiver of the ropes by which Patrick Joyce and Casey were suspended, but there was apparently severe struggling on the iwt of r Myles Joyce, for the rope ho hung by violently oscillated, and MarVood who stooped down could be seen for 8everal’'minutes “hfLerwards endeavouring to do son?^tliing— It could not be seen what — with the noose. Marwood afterwards, in reply to the reporter, explained that Myles Jtfyce by some means or other bad got his atmi or his . hand entangled with the rope, and that , he hod been trying to push it down. Death, he was positive, was inSiantane- 1 ous, and) nothmg.could have been wrong with the rope, as he had used it at executions before at Limenck, York, Liverpool^ Bodmin, Cornwall, and Worcester, as well as at lialway before, in the case i&f Patrick Walsh, the young who was hanged for the inqjder of a constable. Beside, he gaVe all the men a drop of equal length— ftine feet. One of the othero^Tes he used at the executions of Dr. Larnson and Lefroy.

The scaffoW was a substantial-looking structure raised about twelve feet from the ground, and was erected by \i;AC>.inen brought down from Dublin all the local tradesmen having refusgi to do the work. The pris(& was surrounded, by sentries all night, and a body of police •were ou duty outside on the nbming otM ezeoution, to quell any disturbance which might arise. But scarcely a dope persons assembled around the pliiTe, even c.fter the black flag had been run up to show that the sentence of the 1^ had been carried out.

On looking down from the platform into , the trap in which the men ware hanging, the upper parts of their bodies could be discerned, their heads drooping to one side. AU wore their own clothes. Myles Jo 35 ce,;«yas apparently between forty and fifty yearsf‘of with short brown whiskers and mi^ustache. Pat Case/ was a shor^vepulsive-lookmg man, with a countenance strongly indicative of brutal ferocity, while Ptt Joyce was younger iTj^ a few years than the other two, and far better looking. Hopes were entertained aC the reprievpir'irr Myles Joyce by his friends and relatives kimost up to the last moment. A memorial was sent by his^ife to the Lord Lieutenant, stating that he was innocent of the crime, and that the other men who haU taken part in it wore ready to swear was not with them on the night of th^gmjyrder. His Excellency, howoveipmoer reviewing the facts of the case, found he had no option but to allow the law to take its course.

The three Joyces who followed the party on the night of the murders, and by whose aid the perpetrators were afterwards brought to justice, returned to their houses, after refieiving the sum of £1,250 from the Governm(?rruBi’Treward for the information that they gave. The authont’es ottered tG send them out of the country fiee of expense, but they positively refused to go, and alsq declined protection, alleging 'that the feeling of the i^eople tK.* the district was so strong in their favour that tl^ey did not need it.

THK JOYCE COMMUNITY IN Connemara.

Something like half a cev.iury ago the wild and desolate region known as the ‘Joyce Country,’ and stilLfUrther renowned later in the wildest carnage of modem times, was peopled by a race oi giants. When O’Connell vSKitedl Galwaj he expressed a desire to see some wpecimensof the race, and in order to gratif^' this wish a deputaticti formed amongst them was introduced to him. O’ Connell, himself of colossal statuesque proportions, was consiclerabiy amazed at these stalwart sons of EffhiAf^dressing thefti in Gaelic, which wwj the only tongue intelligible tothem, and Of which he was so thorough a master, he commended their peaceable d'jjposition, calling them ‘gentle giants, living in solitude, the home of freedom and peace.* 0 ten^ora, 0 vwres / The ‘ Joyce Couu« try* formed a part of the v|bt territorial property of the late Mr. Tl. Martin, of Balfynahlnch Caslle, wi^ represented the county of Cfelway in^he Houte of Commons. In the House he went by the name of ‘Humanity Dick,’ on account of his having introduced the flrst raeasura for thepi-Qvention ofcmelty to animals. His numerous duels in Ireland, and espccially*liis faction tights with the family the O’Flaheitys ne^ to Ids own tiie usost powerful fainilyimConnemara— won from his tenantry and^Apendents the dtftinguishmg title of ‘ Bia%e Dick.' He was the most improvident of men, even amongstgin improvid(|nt race— as, for instance, though marble^d coal abounded on Ins own immense domain— a domain boasting an IP^nue of thirty miles Jong— he sent to England and otl\fr cooWms for the^se commodities. He left an only child, a daughter, of such accomplishments and learning as to give her the title of ‘ bibe stocking’ in the days before there were ‘ gii'> graduates,' sweet or otherwise, The wst property reverting to her prr^(^ to be a darnniata hceredttas,anA, thou^*lsbG wrote several novels, which met with a fair success, she evidently died in great poverty in New York, after having been tor some time supported by the respectthl tributes of the desccudants of the loyal and humble tenantry of ‘Brave Dick of Coriiiomitra.'

GALWAY TRIPLE E^cuTioN ; INTERVIEW * i^^RWOOD.

An mtemew with Marwood, the executioner, at his home at Horncastle, was thus desA'ibed by a newspaper correspondent: — ‘Now, sir, will you take a seat, and*8ay what you require of me?’ said my host, as Imbowed out with profuse politeness Waller who was still with at the hour of my appointment. ‘Wlftt do you want to know?’ he continued; ‘wliat can I tell you about IrelanfTr Have bc^i to Galway? I replfed that 1 knew tlie city well, and to*d him the story of how the chief magistrate had once found his own son guilty of^ui^er on the high seas, and ifbt EnljF sentenced him to death, but af the story goes, hanged Inm with his own hai^. ‘The chief magistrate, did you suyY’ inter|ibsed my host. the warder of Galway; a gi’eat man;’ and flien I told him the whole atorj|K)f bow James Fitz-!Stephfiii sent his his only son trJ on commercial bu'iineas, am^ ft^d some time afterwAds that, returning with a Spanish friend, they had conspired with the cicw to — throw theiBpaiiiard overbotircl and seize for their own use a valuable cargo. After many many months, stricken with horror, one of the crow revealed tl* olrcumstances. The yonng man was tried before his own father, was found guilty, and sentenced to death. But the peopie of the town waited upop their mayor, and, depending partly on the iact that the young man was .an only son, pleaded that his jsentance should be conlnifted. *You shall have nfy answer if you will call at mid-day to-morrow,' said the warden calmly, and the deputation went a\ray in good hope, Next day when they went til the house they found the body of thcbyoung man suspended from one of the front windows. This was the answer of the steuA warden of Okalway to the appeal for mercy. ‘A splendid fellow, ’ said Marwood, ‘I should have done the same myself, If I din only get some of them to go with me I shall have a look at that house when I go back to Galway in the beginning of the year.' From this time the tongue of niy entertivner was loosened. He felt on quite tli« same mental plane as the historical Mayor of Galway and began benignly to give me his experiences. I interrupted him by putting the question plainly whether it was or was not a fact that in the case of Myles Joyce there was something so far wrong that tlie rope had to be read,justed by the eilfecutiorier's foot. ‘What have you seen in the papers?* he asked. I showcd him the story as toM in a semi-local publication. ‘It’s not true,’ said Marwood ; ‘those Irish papers do tell such lies.’ And he went to a litfte ‘cupboard,' and brouglit out a sheet of paper with a'^lew8p!lpcr clipping newly pasteef on. ‘Look there, Hie said, ^that's the fact. You see it statik that the jury at vial way wanted to see me, but that the coroneV tliouglit it was only curiosity, and would n^t allow me to be called.' ‘But repd^teusas a rule tell the truth,' I mterruinsl, with a regard for the dignity of the proiessiun winch will not, 1 trust, ofleiid seriously the Recording Angel, ‘and it is stated that yob stooped down andsaid, ‘Bother the fellow.' Is that true?’ ^he man looked a little confused, but answered, with pioib proin^^ness than I hud expected, ‘Well, yes; iHielieve I did say so. You see the tcllow was so lvi|hei some. Neither the ‘ Yes, priest nor me ctpild make him stand, And he threw himself about so, after his arras were lixed, and thefopa got under wrist as it was lixed across his breast— you kniw when tl»y stand patiently and pi operly it always lies loose on their shduMer lust before they drop and when I looked down the piWB» was hangup crossways like. His head was a little to the side, owing to the rope being caught in the ari^ and lie didnofc hungstvaighfc and proprt’ likc^he other two. But he did not suffer anything, any more than the others. He was a wild, bad-looking fellow, and kept jabbering and talking. 1 couldn’t uiid derstaud a word of his * lingo,’ and I don’t think the priest knew much of it, for he seemed frightened. But there was aaough force hf the ropeeorfhis neck to iioish him in very little time, He was dead as soon as the others, las^y though the doctor ^id Re was ‘strangulated.’ Blooked myself, and I did see that hie ue(;k was not broken.’ I here ventured to mention to Marwood how le ttie SL Jamett^ Gazette had suggested t^t in such cases it would be better to uae a little chlomform. My host opened his eyes very wide indeed, and regardedme with an airin whichacdHain aoupcon of disgust was distinctly perceptible. It was as much as to say, * You— you, who have just told me adminngly that ptory of the warden of Galway, and you let yourself down by ef!^ the weak suggestion that it might be better to use chloiofonn.’ Marwood, however, only looked this. And he said with a tine moral indignation, ‘ No, no, that would never do : it’s too like poiaomng. No chlaraform, no chlaraform ; no, SIT, let a man meet his fate like a mau. It’s the rope 1 believe in ; tfliere’s nothing else frightens them like that, We mustn’t have no poisoning brought into the business.’

Hansard

Harrington: Amendment to the address in response to the 1884 Queen's Speech; after 5 days' debate defeated 48–219:

And humbly to assure Her Majesty that it is the opinion of a vast number of the Irish people that the present method of administering the Law in Ireland, more especially under the Crimes Act, has worked manifold injustice, and, in the case of the prisoners tried for the Maamtrasna murder, has led to the execution of an innocent man and to the conviction of four other persons equally innocent, and that this House humbly assures Her Majesty that it would ensure much greater confidence in the administration of the Law in Ireland if a full and public inquiry were granted into the execution of Myles Joyce and the continued incarceration of Patrick Joyce, Thomas Joyce, Martin Joyce, and John Casey

Parliamentary questions on pre-execution confessions and exonerations:

• by Callan to Gladstone ("it is a perfectly well-established practice ... to withhold statements and confessions made by persons under sentence of death.")
• by Healy to Gladstone ("The Prerogative of mercy has never been ... cast in medio before the whole Cabinet. It has always been the special and responsible function ... of the Viceroy")
• S. Gibbons, District Inspector, Irish Constabulary, who, as appears by official returns, was— "Promoted ten steps on the seniority list, and granted a first-class favourable record (1. 11. Y. S.) for special detective intelligence and capacity, as shown in the successful prosecution of the Maamtrasna murderers"

Resolution by Parnell 1885:

That, in the opinion of this House, it is the duty of the Government to institute strict inquiry into the evidence and convictions in the Maamtrasna, Barbavilla, Crossmaglen, and Castleisland cases, the case of the brothers Delahunty, and, generally, all cases in which witnesses examined in the trials now declare that they committed perjury, or in which proof of the innocence of the accused is tendered by credible persons, and that such inquiries, with a view to the full discovery of truth and the relief of innocent persons, should be held in the manner most favourable to the reception of all available evidence

Harrington: Amendment to 1895 Queen's Speech address (withdrawn when Morley promised to "carefully consider the whole subject"):

And we humbly assure Your Majesty that the present peaceful condition of Ireland affords a fitting opportunity for an inquiry into the circumstances attending the trial and conviction of certain prisoners at present suffering penal servitude in Ireland, known as the Maamtrasna prisoners." He said that this subject had been before the House on four or five different occasions. It affected not only the continued imprisonment of four men, suffering penal servitude in Ireland, but affected also the question of their guilt or innocence of the very abominable and the very heinous crime which was laid to their charge

T M Healy account

Foster's narratives related to men accused of the Maamtrasna murders of 1882. These were committed before the crime in the Phoenix Park, and were the worst that had occurred until then. A whole family except a boy was wiped out on a mountain-shieling in Galway, although no political motive could be traced nor any palliation suggested. The police brought the boy to Dublin.

There were whispers of trespass by sheep, but nothing more. At night, by the light of a paraffin lamp (then little used by rustics) the slaughter was accomplished. Necessarily Lord Spencer sought to bring the criminals to justice. A swoop was made, and a dozen men of the migratory labourer class, who had been working in South Shields, Co. Durham, were arrested. Taken before Mr. Brady, R.M., son of Sir Thomas Brady (Fishery Inspector), they were sent to Dublin for trial. Verdicts of guilty by special juries led to death sentences, and the condemned men were taken to Galway for execution. One of them, Myles Joyce, on the scaffold, vehemently protested in Gaelic his innocence. A few weeks later an English soldier Stationed in Galway Jail vowed that on his rounds as sentry he saw Joyce's ghost at night.

This tale passed into the Press, and, coupled with Joyce's protests on the trap-door (recorded by the prison chaplain), made a deep impression. T. Harrington, M.P., was then serving a sentence in Galway Jail for a speech to his constituents. When released he raised an outcry against Joyce's conviction. This he followed up with such dexterity that, backed by XJniUi Ireland, the country seethed in protest.

In August 1884, I visited the scene of the massacre with Harold Frederic, of the New York Times, T. P. O'Connor, and my brother. There was no road to Maamtrasna, and we had to ride on ponies up the bed of a mountain stream which in summer was dry. When we reached the place an uncanny feeling overcame us. A month later the late Edward Eimis, a barrister, who was a frequenter of Green Street Courthouse, Dublin, came to me with a bundle of papers. He had gained access to a room where Crown briefs were carelessly thrown after trial, and found the brief held in the Maamtrasna case by Peter O'Brien, Q.C. (afterwards Lord O'Brien, Chief Justice). Taking the printed "informations" from it, he gave them to me. It was the right of the accused to be furnished with "depositions." Moreover, Lord Justice Barry declared from the Bench at Limerick in July, 1891, that as Attorney-General his practice was to hand a copy of the entire Crown briefs to the prisoners' counsel.

In the Maamtrasna case the accused had not been furnished even with the "informations." The chief witness against them was an informer named Casey, who swore that Myles Joyce was one of the murder party with himself, and that all of them came to their victims’ cabin dressed in black or with black overalls. The Crown brief, however, contained printed copies of an ‘‘ information " by the surviving boy, who had been brought to Dublin to make it.

He swore that the murderers wore “baunyeens" (white flannel jackets) — the usual garb of a Galway mountaineer. This testimony, straight from the scene of the assassination, was in complete conflict with Casey's evidence.

The Prosecution not only suppressed it, but did not produce as a witness the sole survivor of the tragedy. Until I got sight of this “ information " I never encouraged Harrington's protest. It began with the scare of a sentry in Galway Jail, whose ghost story seemed absurd. Yet it preluded a fateful series of political incidents, which helped to bring down the Liberal Government in 1885.

A startling confession was to come. A mission (or revival) took place in the parish of the informer Casey in 1884. The Archbishop of Tuam Dr. McEvflly, unaware that anything unusual was to happen, came to give greater solemnity to the devotions. Casey entered the church unexpectedly, and after parley with the curate, publicly confessed his perjury against Myles Joyce. With a lighted candle in his hand before the astonished congregation, he owned that to save his neck he had sworn falsely. Furthermore, he declared that the real murderer was "Big Pat Casey of Bunnacric."

Amazement stirred the Irish public mind. United Ireland boldly accused Big Pat Casey of the crime, and dared him to prosecute the publishers for libel. Again and again, for weeks, it returned to the charge, but Big Pat Casey lay low, and Lord Spencer refused to hold an investigation into the facts.

Harrington raised the case in pamphlet and in Parliament. Lawyers on both sides, like Sir Charles Russell, Sir Edward Clarke, Sir John Gorst, and others took the view that there had been a miscarriage of justice, and voted with us for inquiry. Gladstone was disturbed and summoned Peter O'Brien, who had prosecuted, to London, but he ended by accepting O'Brien's excuses.

Each knew that the crime was non-political, but felt that if a wrong in the administration of the Crimes Act was acknowledged, the argument for miscarriage in political cases would be strengthened. So there was no admission of a mistake.

In June, 1885, the Irish Party joined the Tories to defeat the Liberals, and the ex-Home Secretary, Sir William Harcourt, described the junction as the "Maamtrasna Alliance." He could not pronounce the word "Maamtrasna," and always called it "Manstrasma." Airily he used to twit the new Government with "stewing in Parnellite juice." One or two of the prisoners had not been hanged, but the Tories did not release them. Not till 1903 did the last of them get free, and then thanks only to the visit of the late Queen Alexandra and King Edward to Connemara. The wife of the surviving convict (at the Marble Quarries in Galway) fell on her knees before the Royal pair, sobbing that she was lonely for her man. Guilty or innocent, he had been twenty years in jail, and the Queen, touched by her sorrow, asked the King to telegraph a pardon. Next day the prisoner was set at large.

The Irish members had not pressed for his release — for a reason which would not strike outsiders. We knew that year after year Gaelic-speaking priests visited Maryboro' Jail to enable him to go to confession. The decrees of the Council of Trent bind Catholics annually (at least) to approach the Sacraments. This convict, the warders told us, refused to do so. That carried to our minds the inference of guilt, and, besides, showed that he was so ignorant of his religion that he distrusted the integrity of priests nominated specially for his benefit. Coupled with the infamous nature of the crime, this restrained us from lifting a finger to hasten his enlargement.

Harrington, who relentlessly pursued the case of Myles Joyce, never contended that all the prisoners were innocent. He merely maintained that the Crown lawyers cared little whether they were guilty or not. The ghost story of the English sentry walking the ramparts of Galway Jail in 1883 bred a weird offspring in 1885.

Winston Churchill

One harsh note jarred upon the ears of these Blysian legislators. The new Ministers had scarcely taken office before the shadowy relations which existed between the Conservative Government and the Irish party issued in a substantial form. Nationalist opinion in Ireland had long been excited over one of those dark and curious police cases the savagely disputed details of which are thrust from time to time before the House of Commons, to the bewilderment of British members. In August of 1882 a whole family of the name of Joyce had, with the exception of one young boy, been murdered under circumstances of peculiar atrocity at Maamtrasna. Ten men were arrested upon the evidence of three witnesses who professed to have seen them enter the house in which the crime was committed. This evidence was confirmed by two of the prisoners who turned approvers. After three 188.5 successive trials three men v^^ere condemned to death Mt[-i(> and executed, and the remaining five, having pleaded guilty, received death sentences, afterwards commuted to penal servitude for life. So far the story was grimly simple. But it was now alleged that two of the murderers hanged had, in their dying depositions, declared the innocence of the third, Myles Joyce ; while this man himself had protested always and to the last that he was not guilty. One of the informers next came forward and swore that he had been told by an ojBS.cial that his evidence would not be accepted by the Crown unless it applied to all the prisoners, that he was given twenty minutes to decide and that then from ' terror of death ' he had been induced to swear away the life of Myles Joyce. An appeal from the Archbishop of Tuam to the Lord-Lieutenant had led to an inquiry by Lord Spencer and this inquiry resulted in the conclusion that the verdict and sentence were right and just.

Hatred of a Coercion Viceroy and the profound distrust which divided all who administered the law in Ireland from the mass of the people, magnified this squaHd tragedy into a political issue of importance. It was asserted that as a result of Coercionist procedure and the overweening desire of the Government to secure convictions, not only had an innocent man been done to death, but that some of those still in prison had been wrongfully convicted. When the case was raised in Parliament during the 1885 Autumn Session of 1884, the Government, representing the vote as one of confidence or want of confidence in Lord Spencer, refused all further inquiry. In this they were generally supported by both great parties and the Irish motion was rejected by 219 to 48. But Lord Eandolph Churchill, Sir Henry Wolfi and Mr. Gorst had voted in the minority with the Nationalists and Lord Eandolph had spoken strongly in their favour.

Almost as soon as the formation of the new Cabinet was complete Mr. Parnell moved (July 17) a resolution reflecting on Lord Spencer and demanding a fresh inquiry. Sir Michael Hicks-Beach opposed this resolution in the name of the Government ; but at the same time he said that it was the right of every prisoner at any time to appeal to the Lord-Lieutenant for the reconsideration of his sentence. ' The present Lord-Lieutenant [Lord Carnarvon] has authorised me to state that, if memorials should be presented on behalf of those persons referred to in this motion, they will be considered by him with the same personal attention which he would feel bound to give to all cases, whether great or small, ordinary or exceptional, coming before him.' That was all ; and it may not seem a very large concession to Irish national feeling, but it was enough to draw upon the head of the Minister a storm of reproach. Sir William Harcourt, undisturbed by the significant absence of Mr. Chamberlain and Sir Charles Dilke, rose to express the indignation of the Liberal party that law and order should be subverted to political expediency and the decision of a Viceroy impugned. 1885 These sentiments were received with undisguised ^^^6 approval on the Conservative benches. Lord Eandolph Churchill replied. So far as he was personally concerned his task would have been easy. He, at least, had consistently supported the Irish demand for an inquiry. He was to defend in office a smaller concession than he had urged in Opposition. But what with Ulster growlings, sympathetically echoed by the Tory party on the one hand, and on the other the plain need of Nationalist good-will, if peace and order were to be maintained in Ireland under the ordinary law, the path was not easy to find and perilously narrow to tread. His speech, in fact, resolved itself into a series of depreciatory comments upon Lord Spencer's administration. Sir William Harcourt had spoken of it with pride. ' We were proud of the administration of Lord Spencer.' Who did ' we ' include ? It was the prerogative of royalty to speak in the plural number. Sir William Harcourt had once before electrified the country by claiming royal descent. Was it in that exalted character that he used the 'we,' or did he mean that the late Cabinet were united in their admiration of Lord Spencer's Viceroyalty? The division list would show. For himself he had had no confidence in the administration of Lord Spencer. For that reason he had a year before voted in favour of an inquiry into this particular case. The new Grovernment ought not unnecessarily to go out of their way to assume responsibility for the acts of the 1885 late Administration. They would now pronounce ^y_ ,5 no opinion upon the merits of the case. The new Lord-Lieutenant would inquire carefully and impartially into it ; and pending that inquiry, having full confidence in Lord Carnarvon, Ministers would vote against the motion of Mr. Parnell which seemed to prejudge the issue. On this Mr. Parnell rose at once and said that he was content to await Lord Carnarvon's decision. He therefore asked leave to withdraw his motion. But the discussion did not terminate. The Ulster members and their friends — always so powerful in the Conservative party — were offended by the concession, small though it was, which had been made to their hereditary foes. The friendly tone of the Irish leader, and the Nationalist cheers with which Lord Randolph's strictures upon Lord Spencer had been received, excited Orange wrath and Tory disapproval. Liberals who had smarted under the taunt ' Kilmainham Treaty ' were not slow to retort ' Maamtrasna Alliance.' Mr. Brodrick, a young Conservative who had not been included in the new Government as his talents deserved, and who believed, perhaps with reason, that his exclusion was due to the fact that he had voted with Sir Stafford Northcote and against Lord Randolph Churchill in the interregnum division, expressed with much force the Conservative discontent. He was supported by the vehement outcry of an Ulster member. Mr. Gorst, who now for the first time defended the Government a.s Solicitor-General, unwittingly fanned the flames by allowing himself to use the candid but unfortunate 1885 expression ' reactionary Ulster members.' The stern /£^jq reproaches with which Lord Hartington closed the debate, were endorsed by many Conservatives in the House and by an influential section of the party press.

The Maamtrasna incident was a factor in great events. It profoundly disturbed the Conservative party. It thrust the Whigs for a space back upon Mr. Gladstone. It prepared Mr. Gladstone's mind for the reception of other impressions which were to reach him later. Upon Lord Spencer its influence was perhaps decisive ; and the Yiceroy who for three years had ruled Ireland with dignity and courage, yet with despotic power, whose name had become a synonym for the maintenance of law and order by drastic measures, finding the standard of Coercion abandoned even by Tory Ministers, came by one wide yet not irrational sweep to the conclusion that Home Eule in some form or other was not to be prevented. There can be no doubt that he was deeply wounded by Lord Eandolph Churchill's speech. Connected though they were by many ties of kinship, their friendly relations were not for several years repaired and were never perfectly restored.

Heavy censures have been laid upon Lord Eandolph Churchill for his share in this afiair. The Maamtrasna inquiry has often been described as part of the purchase price paid by the Conservative party to Irish Nationalism for power. On this a word may 1885 be said. Although no bargain of any kind existed, it /ExTie ^^ obvious that Lord Salisbury's Government — which had come into office upon Nationalist votes, which was forced to govern Ireland by the ordinary law, and which possessed no majority in the House of Com- mons — was dependent largely upon Nationalist good- will. To preserve that goodwill was vital to their power to bring the necessary work of the expiring Parliament to a creditable conclusion and to the success of their struggle with Mr. Grladstone. Many other issues of domestic and Imperial poHtics, far greater in their importance than Irish affairs, were at stake in the approaching election. The times were tempestuous ; the need was great ; the concession pitifully small. In the event. Lord Carnarvon received, considered and in due course rejected the memorials which were sent him. No decision was reversed ; no prisoners were released ; but the Irish people, satisfied that the inquiry had been fair, accepted its conclusions. It would not be difficult,' from another point of view, to justify on its merits an examination into the administration of justice in an island which for five years had lain in the grip of what was almost martial law, where the most elementary civil rights had been in abeyance and where nearly every safeguard of British judicial procedure had been destroyed — more especially when that examination was demanded by recognised representatives from a Government of which they were in a sense constituents. This is, however, to raise questions beyond the scope of these pages. The merits of the Maamtrasna inquiry will be variously 1885 appraised. Lord Salisbury's first Administration ^"36 must collectively share the responsibility, as they shared the advantage. But, whether right or wrong, Lord Randolph Churchill's personal sincerity cannot be doubted by anyone who reads his consistent declarations upon this and kindred Irish subjects or who studies his life and opinions as a whole.

United Ireland

leading article, 23 August 1884

Such was the expressive benediction with which the late Mr. Marwood kicked the body of Myles Joyce off the scaffold into the pit prepared for his dying struggles. The phrase is now cordially re-echoed by his Excellency Earl Spencer, since the inconvenience caused to that firm and gentle nobleman by the demand for an inquiry into the confessions of Casey and Philbin. [...] As a mere act of discourtesy to the Queen's representative it was intolerable that his Grace of Tuam should obtrude this malodorous convict's corpse between the wind and his nobility. Marvvood's pronouncement on the situation might surely have been accepted by him as final. "Bother the Fellow" remarked that distinguished functionary in 1882, and his Viceregal superior in the Castle today piously responds " Amen."

Every Green Street juror, after Lord Spencer's decision to hold no inquiry, will henceforward be fully assured that come what may, whatever verdict he may return, it will never be made the subject of question or inquiry. This is a distinct gain to the cause of law and order, but it affords only another proof ofthe determined firmness of the nobleman who, in the teeth of legal precedent, sent Francy Hynes to the gallows, although his drunken jury had separated during the course of the trial. The law must be upheld at all costs, and when the deluded people of Ireland come to understand what a precious and blessed thing the law is, and how necessary it is in the cause of English rule to maintain respect for its decrees, they will appreciate Earl Spencer's resolution in declining to cast discredit on the cause of justice for the sake of the mouldering carcase of a single Maamtrasna peasant.

Leading Article, 13 September 1884

Ilis Excellency chooses for his "counter-demonstration" in the South the very moment when the most horrible proofs of guilt are accumulating against his administration, and when to the charges of shielding infamy, condoning murder, and taking innocent life there is returned no other answer than the slamming of every door against inquiry and the guilty silence of his Chief Secretary. A ruler more sensitively alive to his responsibilities might find penitential reflections over the Maamtrasna revelations and the shameless prostitution of justice at the late Green Street Commission better suited to the time than a vain-glorious march through the districts he has most cruelly wronged, in the role of a peripatetic moral lecturer. But Earl Spencer is not like that weaker vessel, Mr. Trevelyan, content to hide his miserable head, merely because the apparitions of his own guilty creation throng around him. On the contrary it is just the moment when the country is hesitating whether the worst of the Maamtrasna tragedy took place at Maamtrasna, that Earl Spencer selects to display or simulate his scorn for Irish feeling by a triumphal ride through the Millstreet district, sanctified by the investigations of James Ellis French, and the Castleisland district, where the dying cries of innocence, of Poff and Barrett are still borne upon every breeze. The Irish people have hitherto been content to let this man go his ways without discourtesy. Whatever privileges the law and the hussars secure to him we bow to as cheerfully as to a naked bayonet,over which we have no control. The persons at Castleisland who hung out a black banner with the word "Murder!" inscribed thereon by way of greeting to his Excellency were not courtly in their compliments ; would not, perhaps, have been within their legal right in hooting the Viceregal cavalcade. But a Viceroy who at a time like this makes a stagey public display, and pretends to find evidences of good-will wherever he goes, though he goes through districts groaning under his police taxes and desolated by his death warrants, must not be shocked if Irish public opinion declines any longer to be tongue-tied in his presence, and, to our mind, Millstreet last week supplied a perfect model of how the Irish people may dissociate themselves from the speeches of the Wandering Viceroy without exposing their loyalty to the reproof of Captain Plunkett's bludgeons.

If Earl Spencer will persist in going touting upon the highways for Irish opinion, it is high time he should be acquainted through all legal channels of information that, in the opinion of the Irish people, the depressed mien of a penitent would better befit his goings to and fro than the insolence of a conqueror or the homilies of a Castle moralist.

Leading Article, 8 November, 1884

There is plied in London a horrible trade known to the police as "bouncing," by which greedy wretches exact what sums they please from their victims under threat of denunciation of their crimes. The suspended Crown Prosecutor for Tipperary has succeeded in "bouncing" his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and henceforth can make any terms with the Government which he cares to demand. From his own point of view, it is really hard to blame Lord Spencer for reinstating him. Once his Excellency declined to grant an inquiry into the confessions of the informers in the Maamtrasna case, in order not to discredit the conviction system, Bolton had the game in his own hands. When the Viceroy gave his ultimatum to the Cabinet that if the demand of the Irish members were agreed to, his retirement would follow, he had probably overlooked the existence of Mr. Bolton.

Bolton has become a person of the first consideration at the Castle, and must be treated accordingly. As the possessor of its guilty secrets he could at any moment let in such a flood of light on the recent regime of blood as would instantly drive Earl Spencer not only out of Ireland but out of politics, for his revelations would convince even the people of England that the Irish representatives had not exaggerated in depicting the practices of the reign of terror. The sensation created by the publication of French's letter gave a terrible shock to the Castle, and it was at once felt that if an unspeakable like the ex-detective director could do so much mischief what would not Bolton be able to do? Lord Spencer's whole political career, therefore, depended on the re-instatement of this degraded man, and his Excellency has had to pay the price of allying himself with such an accomplice. French declared that he should get .£5,000 and a pension, or he "would put them out of Ireland, and perhaps see some of them in the dock too;" and Bolton, we may be sure, if he expressed himself more diplomatically did not hesitate to convey to his friends in the Castle, while his fate was in the balance, his sense of the difficulties that would arise to the cause of "law and order" if he were turned off or left pensionless. Lord Spencer, therefore, saw nothing for it but to yield, and Bolton becomes master of the situation. We cannot but admire the cleverness of the crafty old bloodhound and the skill with which he has succeeded in forcing his employers in the teeth of public opinion and, much to their own discomfort, to restore him to his functions. The speeches of English members like Lord Lymington show what the Government will have to face in consequence, and few can help feeling scree pity for the wretched helplessness of Earl Spencer driven into a co-partnery with this odious official. To be the slave for life of a person of Bolton's character and antecedents, under pain of having laid bare to the world the story of the murder of Myles Joyce and the other ghastly incidents of the bloodiest administration since '98,opens up, indeed, a terrible future for this haughty English peer. Yet so it is. Mr. Bolton has only to name his price, and Lord Spencer must honour his draft to the uttermost farthing. Vengeance has thus already overtaken the chief actors in the awful drama of the last three years, and as time rolls on and further disclosures leak to light, the position of every man who has had hand, act, or part in shedding innocent blood will become well nigh intolerable. The game which they have played against other conspirators will now be turned against themselves, and wretches like French in their extremity will not hesitate to expose their companions in crime, unless they are bribed to silence.

Phelan 2013

• "held at the Dublin Special Commission in Green Street Courthouse in Dublin under the Prevention of Crimes Act 1882 in November [...] 1882".
• "As there were no salaried interpreters in Dublin, a decision must have been taken, possibly in Dublin Castle, to have police officers act as interpreters in court."
• "with the exception of Myles Joyce, Head-Constable Evans did provide interpretation of what witnesses said in English".
• change of venue: "the decision to hold them at the Dublin Special Commission was crucial because it meant a move to a place where there was no salaried court interpreter. If the trials had been held in Galway, the county interpreter would have been engaged and this would have removed the element of distrust related to a police officer who was acting as interpreter."

Other

George Bolton:

Of the three executed, the two first-named admitted their guilt ; but Myles Joyce protested his innocence, and a good deal of popular indignation was got up on the subject of his execution: but it is to be remembered that Anthony Joyce, John Joyce, and Patrick Joyce, the three principal witnesses for the prosecution, had no animus against him, more than against any of the others— that he was their cousin and neighbour, and perfectly well known to them ; and it is difficult to suppose they could have been right in their dentification of the other nine, and wrong as to him. And, again, it is to be borne in mind that, although he was defended by two such eminent counsel and a solicitor of great ability and experience, selected by himself, but paid by the Government, by which all funds required to procure the attendance of witnesses were supplied, no attempt was made to account for his movements on that night. It is therefore believed his protestation of innocence was founded on the theory that he fired no shot, or struck no blow, and therefore did not consider himself guilty of the murders ; but that he was one of the party by which they were committed no one connected with the prosecution ever doubted.

On the conclusion of those trials, I received from His Excellency Earl Spencer the autograph letter of which a copy is given in the Appendix.

Andrew Dunlop:

On the following day I met Archbishop M'Evilly, who happened to be in Ballinrobe, in continuation of his confirmation tour. His Grace told me he had consulted with some of the local clergy, the result being that he penned a letter to Lord Spencer setting forth briefly the new circumstances that had transpired in connection with the case, and respectfully asking His Excellency to institute an inquiry into the matter. The reply to this came in the form of a lengthened statement, setting forth the evidence given at the trial, and pointing out that apart altogether from the testimony of the informers, there was ample proof to establish the guilt of those who had been charged, and to justify the verdict of the jury. So convincing was this statement that on its publication the matter was virtually dropped. Another letter was forwarded to Lord Spencer by Archbishop M'Evilly ; but I have reason to think that His Grace was greatly impressed by the case which was made out by the Executive, and that it was felt on all sides that the statement was "as a wall of brass" on which it would be useless to seek to make any impression. That this was the view entertained by all save those who were determined not to be convinced seems certain, from the fact that the agitation on the subject ceased, and that there was no mention afterwards of the Maamstrasna case either in Parliament or in the Press.

"The consequent humanitarian concern was used to bludgeon Spencer, but the motivation was political. Asking one administration to reopen its predecessor's business was a violation of unwritten laws and precedents, but that did not deter Parnell. Neither did it deter Churchill, even though he now held cabinet alike as secretary of state for India. Other tories were appalled and saw in it all a grim reminder of the hazards of a Parnellite alliance."

"Examination of Patsy Joyce, aged nine years, the only survivor of the Maamtrasna massacre, the trial of the prisoners, Dublin, Ireland" illustration from the magazine The Graphic, volume XXVI, no 679, December 2, 1882.

Ignatius O'Brien, later Baron Shandon recalled the painful experience of witnessing an aristocratic lady pronouncing the Maamtrasna murder trials excellent entertainment.

Mark Radford on Andrew Reed: "a charge that Reed intimidated witnesses to ensure the ‘correct’ verdict at the Maamtrasna enquiry may equally be true. But again, verification of this accusation would rely on the barest of source material somewhat devoid of hard evidence."

Hugh Pollard, a British intelligence officer during the Irish War of Independence, claimed that Patrick J. Tynan, as chief of Irish National Invincibles, "was responsible for the murder of the Maamtrasna family as well as the Phoenix Park affair".

On 15 December 2012 a "language rights awareness initiative" was organised by Galway City Museum, Conradh na Gaeilge, and An Coimisinéir Teanga and attended by President of Ireland, Michael D. Higgins.

In June 2011, David Alton said that he and Eric Lubbock, 4th Baron Avebury, members of the British House of Lords, would ask Kenneth Clarke to reopen the case and grant Myles Joyce a posthumous pardon. In October 2011, Alton and Avebury met Crispin Blunt, a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice, who admitted that "Joyce probably was an innocent man" but said he would not seek a pardon "unless there were compelling new reasons or sufficient public interest". Alton suggested the Oireachtas or Irish President might petition Queen Elizabeth II.

Jury-packing allegations were common in Irish political trials. The crown prosecutor was Peter O'Brien, nicknamed "Peter the Packer"; the crown solicitor was George Bolton. The Juries (Ireland) Act 1871 increased lower-class and Catholic jurymen and thus increased resort by prosecutors to order jurors to "stand aside". The prosecution had unlimited right to peremptory challenge of jurors, whereas the defence was limited to 20 and otherwise could challenge for cause, which might be rejected. There were 200 on the jury panels for Patrick Joyce and Myles Joyce, of whom 117 were present. At Myles' trial, the crown stood aside 27 of the panel, while the opposition challenged 15 without cause and unsuccessfully challenged one with cause.

William Marwood the hangman was accused of ineptitude for the long death of Joyce due to struggling between beng fitted with the noose and the trapdoor opening. Marwood was heard to say "bother it" when untangling the rope from Joyce's wrist, as recalled by United Ireland in 1884.

6 June 1885: "A notice appeared in last night's Dublin Gazette, stating that, as the result of an inquiry under the Crimes Act, the Lord-Lieutenant has been pleased to award £250 each to Patrick and Martin Joyce, for the loss of their father, John Joyce, one of the victims of the tragedy at Maamtrasna, Co. Galway, in August, 1882." (John Spencer, 5th Earl Spencer was replaced later that month by Henry Herbert, 4th Earl of Carnarvon.)

Reward for courageous and praiseworthy conduct in the pursuit and prosecution of the murderers of the Joyce family at Maamtrasna, viz.:

	£
To Anthony Joyce	500
To his brother, John Joyce	500
To Patrick, son of John Joyce	250
	£1,250

The district of Maamtrasna was transferred from Galway to Mayo after the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898.

Culture

Bram Stoker's 1890 novel, The Snake's Pass, is influenced by accounts of the Maamtrasna murders.

James Joyce (no relation of the participants) described the case in a 1907 Italian newspaper article, and referenced it in Finnegans Wake. "In the article for Piccolo della Sera, Joyce presents the trials as symbolic of all injustice suffered by the subjugated Irish at the hands of their colonizers, whereas in the passage in the Wake, Maamtrasna is turned into a ridiculous stage-Irish affair." The 1907 article is inaccurate, due to both journalistic exaggeration and a lack of source materials to hand in Trieste; "Milesio Joyce" is said to be 60 years old rather than about 45. Jeanne A. Flood says the "Aeolus" episode in Ulysses "connects to the case of Myles Joyce because the episode is deeply concerned with language in the service of legitimacy, justice, and power in Ireland."

RTÉ documentary 2009.

2018 TG4 docudrama Murdair Mhám Trasna.

---

References

Sources

• Hansard
• "Ch.XIX; Massacre of a Family at Maamtrasna". The Mysteries of Ireland: Giving a Graphic and Faithful Account of Irish Secret Societies & Their Plots, from the Rebellion of 1798 to the Year 1883. London: Milner. 1884. pp. 221–238.
• Bolton, George (1887). "Maamtrasna". A short account of the discovery and conviction of the "invincibles" : and of some trials of which the writer had charge in 1881, 1882, 1883 and 1884 ; with a few observations on preliminary investigations in criminal cases (PDF). Dublin: Hodges, Figgis. pp. 33–40, 50. Retrieved 6 April 2018.
• Churchill, Winston (1906). "Ch.X: The 'Ministry of Caretakers'". Lord Randolph Churchill. Vol. I. New York, London: Macmillan. pp. 436–443.
• "Information Note: The Maamtrasna case" (PDF). Spiddal, County Galway: An Coimisinéir Teanga. 20 November 2012. Retrieved 6 April 2018.
• Dunlop, Andrew (1911). "XVI–XVIII". Fifty years of Irish journalism. Dublin: Hanna & Neale. p. 182–218.
• Harrington, Timothy Charles (1884). The Maamtrasna massacre : impeachment of the trials. Dublin: Nation Office.
  • M'Evilly, John; Hamilton, R. G. C. (1884). Correspondence : (between the most Rev. John M Evilly, D.D., Archbishop of Tuam, and the Irish Government) (PDF). Dublin: Alex Thom. Retrieved 5 September 2018. [Appendix to Harrington's pamphlet; a shorter version included in the preceding reference has only a subset, lacking the archbishop's letters at the start and end.]
• Healy, T. M. (1891). "XIII: A Triple Imprisonment (1883)". Letters And Leaders Of My Day. Vol. I. pp. 186–189.
• Howlin, Níamh (2009). "Controlling Jury Composition in Nineteenth-Century Ireland" (PDF). The Journal of Legal History. 30 (3): 227–261. doi:10.1080/01440360903353955. ISSN 0144-0365.
• Howlin, Niamh (10 November 2017). "Maamtrasna: The Trial of Myles Joyce in 1882". UCD Working Papers in Law, Criminology & Socio-Legal Studies (Research Paper No. 18/17). Dublin. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3070186.
• "United Ireland on Spencer, Trevelyan, and Gladstone". Publications issued during the year 1888 (PDF). Irish Loyal and Patriotic Union (ILPU). pp. 235–317.
• Joyce, James (2000). Barry, Kevin (ed.). Occasional, Critical, and Political Writing. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780192833532. Retrieved 6 April 2018.
• Kelleher, Margaret (6 December 2016). "'Tá mé ag imeacht': The Execution of Myles Joyce and Its Afterlives". In Dillane, Fionnuala; McAreavey, Naomi; Pine, Emilie (eds.). The Body in Pain in Irish Literature and Culture. Springer. pp. 99–115. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-31388-7_6. ISBN 9783319313887. Retrieved 5 April 2018.
• O'Hara, Bernard (1993). "Reviewed Work: Maamtrasna: The Murders and the Mystery by Jarlath Waldron". Journal of the Galway Archaeological and Historical Society. 45: 176–178. JSTOR 25535625.
• O'Neill-Bernhard, Christine (Spring–Summer 1995). "Symbol of the Irish Nation, or of a Foulfamed Potheen District: James Joyce on Myles Joyce". James Joyce Quarterly. 32 (3/4: Out of the Archives). University of Tulsa: 712–721. JSTOR 25473672.
• Phelan, Mary (2013). "Chapter 4 Language and Power". Irish Language Court Interpreting 1801-1922 (PDF) (PhD). Dublin City University. pp. 87–96. Retrieved 6 April 2018.
• "Murdair Mhám Trasna" (in Irish with English subtitles). TG4. 4 April 2018.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
• Vaughan, William Edward (2009). Murder Trials in Ireland, 1836–1914. Four Courts Press. ISBN 9781846821585.

Not read

• Butler, Richard J. (November 2020). "The afterlives of Galway jail, "difficult" heritage, and the Maamtrasna Murders: representations of an Irish urban space, 1882–2018". Irish Historical Studies. 44 (166).
• Curtis, L. Perry (Lewis Perry) (1963). Coercion and conciliation in Ireland, 1880-1892; a study in conservative unionism. Princeton University Press. pp. 41–43, 46, 50, 75, 122. Retrieved 27 May 2020.
• Dungan, Myles (2009). Conspiracy: Irish Political Trials. RIA. ISBN 9781904890584.
• Hammond, J. L. (1964). Gladstone And The Irish Nation. New introduction by M. R. D. Foot (2nd ed.). London: Frank Cass. pp. 315–338, 380–382, 417, 467. Retrieved 27 May 2020.
• Hanly, Conor (12 November 2020). "The Maamtrasna murders: The trial of Myles Joyce". In Nash, David; Kilday, Anne-Marie (eds.). Fair and Unfair Trials in the British Isles, 1800-1940: Microhistories of Justice and Injustice. Bloomsbury Publishing. pp. 99–117. ISBN 978-1-350-05095-2.
• Higginbottom, Frederick James (1934). The Vivid Life: A Journalist's Career. Simpkin, Marshall. pp. 38–44. Retrieved 27 May 2020. [account of the hangings]
• Kelleher, Margaret (2018). The Maamtrasna Murders: Language, Life and Death in Nineteenth-Century Ireland. UCD Press. ISBN 9781910820421.
• McAree, Noel (1990). Murderous Justice: A Study in Depth of the Infamous Connemara Murders. Limerick: Wildshaw Books.
• Murphy, James H. (2014). "Maamtrasna and Hawarden". Ireland's Czar: Gladstonian Government and the Lord Lieutenancies of the Red Earl Spencer, 1868-86. University College Dublin Press. ISBN 9781906359812.
• Ó Cadhla, Stiofán (2010). ní Ríordáin, Clíona (ed.). "Tiontú an Chultúir: Affaire Dominici agus Maolra Seoighe". Études irlandaises (in Irish). 35 (2: Traduction : pratique et poétique): 35–50. ISBN 978-2-7535-1246-7. Retrieved 16 April 2018.
• Ó Cuirreáin, Seán (2016). Éagóir: Maolra Seoighe agus dúnmharuithe Mhám Trasna (in Irish). Dublin: Cois Life. ISBN 9781912134717.
• Phelan, Mary (Autumn 2019). Irish speakers, interpreters and the courts, 1754–1921. Dublin: Four Courts Press. ISBN 978-1-84682-811-9.
• Waldron, Jarlath (1992). Maamtrasna; The Murders and the Mystery. Edmund Burke. ISBN 978-0946130078.
• "Murdair Mhám Trasna" (in Irish). TG4. 1 November 2020.