Ulster Origins

When you begin digging into family history, you imagine that old newspapers will give you facts, dates, names, hopefully clear answers. What you initially may not expect is that they will also give you opinions.  Recently I discovered two separate reports of the same court case, involving my ancestors, the Herald family of Aghadowey. Both articles were published on the same day — Saturday 22nd April 1882 [see end of this article for full newspaper articles from the Coleraine Chronicle and the Northern Constitution.]

I was following one family through the newspapers when I realised that two reports described the same event very differently. That made me curious. If the newspapers couldn’t agree, what had really happened?

They describe the same incident: an early-morning attempt by a bailiff to seize goods from the Herald household in July 1881, an altercation that followed, and the resulting court case. Yet reading them side by side feels almost like reading about two different realities. 

The Coleraine Chronicle: formal and factual 

The Coleraine Chronicle account is sober and procedural. It lists the jury, summarises the testimony, and reports the verdict in careful, legal language. 

In that version we learn: 

• Mary Ann Herald threw the contents of a teapot, scalding the bailiff
• Blows were exchanged with tongs, crooks, and a spade
• Mary Ann ended up with broken ribs
• Peggy, her daughter, was injured with a cut to the head
• Neighbour Ellen Carroll (also daughter) described the door bar being broken
• The family were largely undressed, having been surprised at dawn

The tone is serious, if slightly amused at moments. There are hints of sympathy, particularly in the recommendation of mercy for the younger family members. Reading it, you sense a frightened household, a chaotic confrontation, and a court trying, however imperfectly, to sift through conflicting accounts. 

The Northern Constitution: lively, mocking, sensational 

The Northern Constitution tells the same story, but with a very different flavour, leaning heavily into humour. The word “laughter” appears repeatedly, as if the whole business were faintly ridiculous. The cross-examinations are written almost like stage dialogue, full of barbed exchanges and witty asides. I came across this newspaper article and initially found it really amusing. “You’ll never believe what happened to my ancestors…” I told friends gleefully, chuckling through various parts of the re-telling. But really, this is not a funny story. It is a story of life being tough. It also tells of the adversity and injustice my ancestors faced.  

New details appear in this article: 

• The article claims Peggy opened the door herself
• It describes Mary Ann wearing only a petticoat, which was “tramped off her”
• Ellen Carroll testifies that young Tommy was “pitched into the fire”
• Toye says he “saved his life by carrying a spade”
• Kennedy jokes that he was “yellow for a fortnight after” being scalded

Where the Chronicle feels restrained, the Constitution feels theatrical, more interested in colourful storytelling than in the human cost. Most striking is the way injuries to the Herald family are treated almost as comic background noise, while the supposed indignities to the bailiff and his companions are highlighted. 

The same facts, different emphases. Put the two accounts together and you begin to see how slippery “history” can be. Both papers agree on the essentials, but beyond that, everything is filtered: 

• There was an early-morning visit
• A seizure was attempted
• Violence broke out
• No goods were ultimately taken
• John and Mary Ann Herald were imprisoned

The Coleraine Chronicle emphasises the family’s injuries and vulnerability. 
The  Northern Constitution emphasises their disorderliness and impropriety. 

Even small details shift: was the door forced open, or politely answered? Was Mary Ann a badly injured elderly woman, or simply a troublesome householder in a petticoat? 

The truth, of course, lies somewhere in the messy middle. 

What the differences tell us 

These contrasting reports remind me of something important: newspapers are not neutral witnesses. They reflect the attitudes of their editors, their audiences, and their time. In 1882, a poor rural family resisting authority could be portrayed either as victims of circumstance or as comic villains disrupting the proper order of things. Both narratives were available. Each paper chose its angle. For women especially, the framing mattered. In one telling Mary Ann is an injured mother defending her home; in the other she becomes a figure of ridicule whose lack of proper dress is more noteworthy than her broken ribs. To add to the mix, the family was a poor Roman Catholic family and this would also have contributed to the reporting differences. The facts of the morning did not change but the story certainly did. 

Why this matters for family history 

For descendants like me, discovering these two versions has been an eye opener. It would be easy to take a single article as gospel truth and build a neat narrative around it. But real lives are never that tidy. 

By reading both accounts, I can see: 

• how class, religion and gender shaped the way events were described
• how humour was used to soften or dismiss suffering
• how the voices of ordinary people were filtered through very particular lenses

The two articles together do not confuse the story though, they enrich it. They show that history is not just a list of facts, but a conversation (sometimes a noisy, biased, uneven conversation) about how those facts should be understood. And in that space between the telling, we find something closer to the truth. 

When we research our ancestors, we are not only gathering information. We are learning to read critically, to question voices of authority, and to recognise that every story has more than one version.  Neither account is “truer” , they simply reflect different editorial attitudes.

What this means for your research

Never stop at one report. A report can often look the same length and appear to be just widely circulated and copied among different newspapers, but in each paper that report may have slightly different lines included…or left out. Just as today, nineteenth-century Irish papers were not neutral, and they weren’t pretending to be. Titles had politics, proprietors had interests, and readers knew perfectly well which paper they were buying.

Roughly these are the stances of some well known Ulster papers of the time:

• The Coleraine Chronicle, Coleraine: Liberal-Unionist / Conservative-Unionist
• Northern Constitution, Coleraine: Strictly Conservative-Unionist (Anti-Home Rule)
• The Irish News, Belfast: Constitutional Nationalist (Pro-Home Rule)
• The Ulsterman, Belfast: Radical Nationalist / Tenant Rights
• Derry Journal, Derry: Nationalist (Post-1880) This paper was originally established in 1772 as a Protestant/Liberal paper, it dramatically shifted its editorial stance under new ownership in 1880. It became an ardent supporter of Charles Stewart Parnell, the Land League, and the Irish Home Rule movement, countering unionist dominance in the northwest

Both the Coleraine Chronicle and the Northern Constitution were firmly unionist publications in 19th-century Ireland. Based in Coleraine, County Londonderry, they catered primarily to the Protestant, pro-Union population of the North.

Founded in 1844, the Coleraine Chronicle, operated as a liberal-unionist and later broadly conservative-unionist newspaper. It staunchly supported the legislative Union with Great Britain. Its editorial content championed the local agricultural, industrial, and social interests of the Ulster Protestant community.
The Northern Constitution was founded in 1875 and originally titled ‘The Coleraine Constitution and Northern Counties Advertiser’, renaming to Northern Constitution in 1908. It was explicitly established as a conservative-unionist weekly paper. The paper served as a direct political voice to uphold the British “Constitution” (as reflected in its name) against the rising tide of the Irish Home Rule movement. It fiercely opposed any forms of Irish nationalism or republicanism.

While both papers were unionist and catered to the Protestant majority in the region, their distinct political sub-types, target audiences, and editorial motivations in the 19th century would heavily dictate how they framed a clash between a poor Catholic family and a bailiff. The tone of each paper would likely differ based on several key factors:

The Legal and Constitutional Angle: The Northern Constitution was established specifically to counter the rise of Irish nationalism, and this paper viewed the law, the landlord system, and the authorities (like bailiffs and the police) as the bedrock of the British Constitution in Ireland. The reporting would be expected to lean heavily toward protecting the rule of law and the rights of property owners.

The Coleraine Chronicle emerged from the Gladstonian liberal tradition, and was historically more open to examining the social and economic friction between landlords and tenants. While it absolutely supported the Union, it frequently advocated for tenant right reforms.

Sectarian and Religious Bias: As a staunchly conservative mouthpiece, The Northern Constitution’s editorial stance was deeply intertwined with the preservation of Protestant ascendancy and the political status quo. A poor Roman Catholic family could be viewed through a highly sceptical lens, and any resistance to authority might be subtly or overtly linked to wider, threatening agricultural agitation (like the Land League) or nationalist lawlessness.
As for the Coleraine Chronicle, although primarily serving a Protestant (largely Presbyterian) readership, its liberal editorial philosophy meant it was less reflexively hostile toward the Catholic working class on social issues. It would be more inclined to treat the family as “unfortunate tenants” rather than “dangerous Catholic agitators.”

The story of my ancestor’s provides a real-world example of how 19th-century Irish media weaponised tone to influence public opinion.

Why the Northern Constitution Used Derision and Laughter:

• Dehumanisation through Ridicule. By painting the family’s resistance as a comedy or farce rather than a serious act of desperation, the Constitution sought to strip my ancestors of their dignity. Recording laughter in the room was a deliberate editorial tactic to show that the onlookers did not take the family’s grievances seriously, framing them as buffoons rather than victims of a harsh system.
• Reinforcing the Status Quo: For a conservative-unionist paper, an early morning raid by a bailiff was a necessary enforcement of property law. By making the family look foolish or “at fault,” the writer reassured its landlord and wealthy Protestant readership that the authorities were firmly in control and that resistance was pathetic rather than threatening.

Why the Coleraine Chronicle Remained Neutral and Brief….

• The Liberal Dilemma: The Chronicle found itself in a delicate position. As a liberal-unionist paper, it supported the law, but its readers often included reform-minded Presbyterians who were sympathetic to tenant hardships.
• Avoiding Sectarian Fuel: Going into heavy detail about a poor Catholic family resisting a raid could inflame local tensions. By keeping the report brief, neutral, and omitting the “sneering” details, the Chronicle chose to treat it as a standard, unfortunate legal matter rather than turning it into a sensationalised spectacle.

What This Tells me about my ancestors.

The fact that the Constitution went out of its way to mock them suggests that their resistance was spirited enough to warrant a public putting-down. In the face of an early morning raid—which was designed to catch families off-guard and terrified—they stood their ground against the bailiff. The media spin was simply the establishment’s way of trying to neutralise that bravery.

The lessons for us all.

Find every report of an incident, not just the first one you come across.  Learn the politics of the title before you trust its tone. Read for what’s left out. One of these papers recorded the broken ribs. Notice which… 

If you have skimmed over newspaper accounts and settled on just one, why not revisit and go looking for a second or third account of your story in a different paper. If you find another one, set them side by side and mark every point where they disagree. That gap is usually where the real story is sitting.

Read today, the story of the Herald family invites us to look beyond the printed verdict and consider the lived reality behind it; a reality shared by many families whose names appear only briefly in the columns of local newspapers.  The Herald family, like many other families in Ulster, were not just fighting a bailiff. They were also fighting how their story would be told. 

Read full newspaper article: Bailiff’s Troubles – An early visit. Alarming the household
Northern Constitution – Saturday 22 April 1882

John Herald, Mary Ann Herald, James Herald, Peggy Herald and Thomas Herald were indicted for having on the 29th July 1881, at Clagan, forcibly rescued a dresser, the goods of one John Herald.

The prisoners were also indicted for assaulting Neal Curry, Hugh Toye and John Kennedy.

The following jury tried the case:- Messrs. Robert Dysart, James G. Fyvie, Patrick Gillan, William Kirkpatrick, Cochrane Hutchinson, Thomas Criag, William Crawford, K.H. Stevenson, James McGowan, Allen McIlfatrick, Thomas McKeown, and James McLaughlin.

Messrs. Reid and MacLaughlin were for the prosecution, and Mr. Macauly was for the prisoners.

Neill Curry, bailiff, stated that on the day in question he had gone with Hugh Toy, the plaintiff in the decree, and John Kennedy, to seize the goods of John Herald. He had attempted to make the seizure, but was prevented by the prisoners. He was scalded with water and they set upon him with a pair of tongs. (laughter)

John Herald struck one of his assistants with a crook (laughter)

Cross-examined by Mr, Macaulay – You are like the other bailiffs, acquainted with the criminal side of the Court! (laughter) No.

Were you ever before the Garvagh Bench? Yes; but the offense was no great thing.

Are you fond of the bottle? (Laughter) Many a one is.

But you are? A little.

I thought so. What hour did you make this seizure? In the morning. (Here Mr. Macaulay examined the witness to show that the domestics were all in their night dresses at the time the bailiff made the raid.) Hugh Toy stated that he had also been scalded by hot water from the teapot, and Mary Ann Herald said she would allow no seizure to be made there. Her husband struck witness with the crook. James also struck witness with something like a stick or iron. Peggy struck witness with a stick, and witness and his associates were not able to bring away the articles. Mary Anne Herald knocked down witness with a pair of tongs.

Cross-examined by Mr. Macauley – You didn’t do anything? No. They were living in a house of mine. I had disputes with them. I knocked at the door and they would not let me in. (Here Mr. Macaulay read a summons issued by Constable McColgan against witness for breaking the windows with stones for which he was fined by the Garvagh magistrates £2) I saved my life by carrying a spade.

Did you dig into Mrs. Herald’s ribs? (laughter) No

What broke her ribs? I cannot tell.

You say she was partly dressed? She wore a petticoat.

John Kennedy said he found some of the family up. Peggy opened the door. Curry laid the decree on the dresser. Mary Anne (the wife) lifted the teapot and threw the contents on me and the previous witness’s neck. I was yellow for a fortnight after. (laughter)

Mary Anne hit me with a spade. My uncle took the spade from her. She also hit my mother with the tongs. John hit my uncle with the crook. The boys choked me. Curry and I were unable to make the seizure.

Cross-examined by Mr. Macaulay – When did you become a bailiff? You know I am no bailiff! Your Uncle is a bailiff? I assisted him.

Didn’t you burst open the door? No.

Had you a knife in your hand? No; but I had my good clothes on me (laughter) Toy did not do anything with the spade. I didn’t say that Peggy Herald hit the witness on the head.

(Mr. Macauley here quoted witness’s information, which stated “Peggy Herald stuck me on the head” )

Mr. Macaulay, addressing the jury, commented on the fact that John Toye had been fined at Garvagh £2 for breaking the windows and threatening to burn down John Herald’s house. The door, he contended, was broken open by the prosecutors, and if he proved that in evidence he submitted, subject to His Worship’s ruling, that they had acted illegally. The inmates were almost entirely in a state of nudity, and was it a wonder they threw water upon the intruders! They had behaved in a violent and unbecoming manner, more like Zulus or Bashi-Bazouks than natives of the County Derry.

Ellen Carroll, living next door to the prisoner was called for the defence. She stated that Kennedy had a knife in his hand. Her mother wore a petticoat and it was tramped off her. Tommy was pitched into the fire. Mother was in bed for three weeks after the assault. She was cut on the side of the head. The steeple and bar were torn off the door.

Recorder – Did you see them taken off? I did not.

Thomas Carroll stated that he had left for Scotland on the morning of the occurrence. He corroborated in a great degree the previous witness for the defence.

Mr. Reid, in addressing the jury, said the case they had to consider was not merely whether the prisoners were guilty of illegal rescue, but whether the legitimate seizure of goods under civil bill decree in the County Londonderry should obtain.

The recorder then summed up.

Mr. Macaulay asked his worship to leave to the jury the question of the breaking open the door. If this were done the seizure would be illegal.

The recorder said there was no evidence to show that the bailiff and his companions had broken open the door.

The jury found the prisoners guilty, but recommended the three youngest members of the family to mercy.

The recorder said he would discharge the latter on their giving security for their future good behaviour for the next twelve months. John Herald was sent to gaol for one month, and Mary Anne for two months, with hard labour.

Read full newspaper article: A Warm Reception– Resisting a bailiff. Coleraine Chronicle – Saturday 22nd April, 1882.

John Herald, Mary Ann Herald (husband and wife), James Herald, Peggy Herald, and Thomas Herald, were each and all indicted for that they, on the 29th of July 1881, forcibly and unlawfully did rescue, out of the custody of Neal Curry, a dresser, goods of John Herald, seized under a civil bill decree, obtained at suit of Hugh Toye, Green Gortin, near Kilrea.

There were other counts in the indictment, charging the prisoners with having assaulted Neal Curry, Hugh Toye, and John Kennedy at the same time and place.

Mr Reid, S.C.S., appeared for the Crown; Mr Macauley for the defence.

PETTY JURY – the following were sworn in the case – Messrs. Robert Dysart (foreman), James G. Fyvie[?], Robert Gillan, Wm. Kirkpatrick, Cochrane Hutchinson, Thomas Craig, M. Cochrane, K.H. Stevenson, James Magowan [?], Allan McIlfatrick, James McKeown, James McLaughlin.

Neal Curry, examined by Mr Reid – I am the bailiff in the decree, and I went with it to John Herald. I was accompanied by Hugh Toye and John Kennedy. When I went into the house about half-past five in the morning, I had made the seizure, when the woman, Mary Ann Herald, threw the contents of a teapot round, and it burned myself, and I was struck with a crook by John Herald; and he also struck Toye.

There was a lot of young people in the house at the time.

Cross examined by Mr. Macauley – I have been different times before the Garvagh Bench and fined. I have a failing, which a good many have as well as me.

The women were not dressed; but the older woman had, I think, more than a chemise on her. I was astonished when water was thrown on us. I could not tell who cut the girl’s head, or injured the old woman. The old man was in his shirt; but one of the boys was naked. (Laughter.)

Hugh Toye, sworn and examined by Mr Reid – I live in Corkey, in this county. Curry, Kennedy and myself went to execute a degree for £4 16s. The door was on the latch; and when we went into the kitchen all the prisoners were there.

When Curry made the seizure, Mrs. Herald threw water or tea on us, and she struck John Kennedy and Curry with the tongs.

I was attended three times by a doctor. James Herald also struck me. I was knocked down by the blow of the tongs. We did not strike any of the party. None of them were in bed. John Herald and his wife were partially dressed.

Cross examined by Mr Macauley – I did nothing. I was fined at Kilrea for throwing stones at the home of Heralds previously.

I had a spade on the morning in question; but I cannot tell what broke three of Mrs. Herald’s ribs. She had more on her than a chemise. Peggy had clothes on her. The boys were partially dressed.

John Kennedy examined by Mr Reid – I am a nephew of Mr Toye, and accompanied my uncle to execute a decree. The door was opened from the inside. Curry laid the decree upon the dresser. As soon as we entered Mary Ann Herald threw scalding water upon us, and she then struck my uncle and myself with a spade and the tongs.

John Herald struck my uncle with a crook. The daughter (Peggy) struck my uncle with a crook, and the boys choked me. We were unable to bring away any of the goods. The Heralds and I were on good terms.

Cross-examined by Mr. Macauley – I went in first on this occasion. I did not burst open the door for the bailiff. They were half dressed in the kitchen. I had not a knife in my hand. Toye took the spade with which I had been cut on the head.

I would not be swearing far wrong if I swore that Peggy Herald struck me. I cannot say that I swore the same in Garvagh as I swore here.

This was the case for the Crown.

Mr. Macauley addressed the jury for the defence, remarking that the plaintiff had been fined £2 at suit of the police for smashing the windows in defendants’ house; and that the door was forced by the young man Kennedy, by breaking the bolts and the staples of the door.

This is a very common device for some person to force the door, that the bailiffs might get in. Under the extraordinary circumstances, which I shall lay before you, I would ask you to come to the conclusion that the seizure was illegal; and also to the fact that when these men behaved in the manner he (Kennedy) did, breaking the woman’s ribs, John Herald was justified in interfering.

Ellen Carrol, sworn and examined by Mr. Macauley – I live next door to the Herald’s. I was awakened by their screams. I saw John Kennedy with a knife, and Toye was “laying on” my mother with a spade, and said he would have a life. I did not see my father; but I saw Tommy coming out of the fire. James had nothing on him.

My mother had her ribs broken, and was attended by Dr. Lane for three weeks during which time I attended.

The staple was off and the bar was broken. Peggy was bleeding badly from a wound on the side of the head.

Cross examined by Mr. Reid – I took time to dress before I came down. There is only one room in my father’s, and a loft in which Peggy sleeps.

To the Recorder – My father came up out of the room, about five minutes after I went in.

To Mr Reid – I interfered and took the spade from Hugh Toye. It is not usual to bar the doors in our part of the country. John Kennedy struck me with his foot.

To Mr Macauley – The bar of the door was given by me to my father, and was fastened by a staple.

This concluded the case, when the Recorder summed up.

The jury retired, and after a short absence, returned to court with a verdict of guilty.

The foreman said the jury were unanimous in recommending the younger prisoners to the mercy of the court.

The Recorder – We will take security in £10 each from two solvent sureties that the children of the other prisoners be of good behaviour for 12 months.

John Herald would be imprisoned for one month with hard labour, and Mary Ann Herald, but for whose conduct the whole affair might have been arranged, would be sent to gaol for two months, with labour suited to her sex.

This concluded the Crown business of the Sessions.