our liberty, and would not take it. Some of our people had no pity for us; they never considered what we considered, that one of our men, Daniel O’Sullivan Agreem, had been convicted and sentenced to ten years’ transportation on Sullivan Goula’s swearing and that our pleading ‘Guilty’ to get out free would confirm his sentence and put the brand of truth on what Goula swore.52
Once again, all the prisoners earlier released on bail were free to leave the court, while O’Donovan Rossa, Morty Moynahan and William O’Shea, despite application for bail were returned to Cork Jail to resume their imprisonment.
O’Donovan Rossa relieved himself of the mundane life of the Victorian prison system by increasingly turning to satire. In one of his lesser known satirical writings he sought permission from the prison authorities to write to the Lord Lieutenant, the Earl of Eglington, to demand his right to vote during the 1859 general election. While this letter was seen as appropriate, its contents were entirely tongue-in-cheek. O’Donovan Rossa wrote that it was his civic duty to be temporarily released so he could be returned to Skibbereen and vote for Lord Derby’s Conservative Party. His justification for this demand was that if he did not vote he feared his absence could be the catalyst for a European war, considering Lord Derby’s support for the concert of Europe and the peaceful balance of power within the continent. O’Donovan Rossa sardonically suggested that if allowed to vote, his candidate could keep Lord Derby in office and thus prevent conflict:
Need I remind your lordship how unconstitutional it would be to deprive an innocent man of his voice in this important crisis; and, such a deprivation of right may entail the most disastrous results. For instance, my lord, my support may be instrumental in returning an honourable and independent man to the Imperial Parliament; the support of this honourable and independent man may be instrumental in maintaining Lord Derby in office, and the retention of Lord Derby in office may be the means for preventing the shedding of oceans of blood, by affording him the time and opportunity for bringing the troublous affairs of Europe to a speedy and pacific conclusion; whereas, opposite and most disastrous results may follow from my inability to attend the poles… In counting up the Liberal and Derbyite gains and losses, we must admit at least that Lord Derby, through adverse circumstances, lost one ardent supporter, and if war follows his lordships resignation, we shall remember this new prophet Jeremiah…53
The Lord Lieutenant did not reply and O’Donovan Rossa remained in Cork Jail. As predicted by O’Donovan Rossa, Lord Derby lost the general election. The boredom of life in Cork Jail was finally relieved when McCarthy Dowling returned to the prisoners to inform them that their trial had been moved to the Cork Summer Assizes, taking place on 26 July 1858. McCarthy Dowling was increasingly worried, however, that the prisoners would be kept in jail without charge until 1860, and making applications on behalf of his clients, the state once again offered terms. Under the states’ proposal, if the prisoners pleaded guilty to the charges levelled against them they would at once be released on their own assurances of good behaviour. Having approached the prisoners with this deal for their consideration, soon after, their solicitor informed them that the state pledged that if they changed their plea to guilty, Dan O’Sullivan would be released from jail on a similar bond of assurance of good behaviour.
The Phoenix prisoners remained stubbornly opposed to pleading guilty at the Summer Assizes; McCarthy Dowling stressed to them that if they failed to change their plea they would not get bail and would remain lodged at Cork Jail. O’Donovan Rossa, Dowling and William O’Shea were allowed to discuss the terms proposed by the state. They remained opposed to pleading guilty, yet they had other interests outside. O’Donovan Rossa in particular was hit hard by his imprisonment and his family were unable to pay debts to creditors. There was also a dispute between his landlord and another man as to who actually owned the home O’Donovan Rossa’s family lived in, forcing his wife and their four children to move into another house. Leaving the decision to O’Donovan Rossa as to how the prisoners were to respond to the state’s offer, Dowling and O’Shea deferred to him. O’Donovan Rossa reluctantly recommended they change their plea. It had been hard for him to come to this decision and he recalled that the Phoenix men outside of the prison had suggested that the IRB was dead, and James Stephens had fled to France in the wake of the Phoenix arrests. Arriving at the Cork Summer Assizes in July 1859, as recommended by O’Donovan Rossa, the Phoenix prisoners agreed to the state’s terms and were released without charge with an understanding that if they continued in conspiracy they would be arrested and imprisoned. To their vexation, despite the state’s offer, Dan O’Sullivan remained imprisoned. O’Donovan Rossa furiously wrote to McCarthy Dowling, accusing the state of reneging on their agreement and threatened to go to the newspapers unless something was immediately done for his imprisoned comrade. It was not until October 1859 that Daniel O’Sullivan was released.
Freed from Cork Jail, O’Donovan Rossa returned home to Skibbereen to a lost family home and a temporary residence. Considering how his name had been heavily publicised in the local newspapers in relation to the Phoenix arrests, and his plea of guilty to charges of conspiracy, the O’Donovan Rossa’s were increasingly ostracised within the local community from all but a loyal gathering of friends and those of similar nationalist opinions. Equally, the landlords, the clergy and the local magistrates used all of their influence to undermine his business within the community and discourage trade. Many of his more wealthy customers who formerly patronised his shop now abandoned his business; he became increasingly reliant on poorer and less well-to-do customers, which affected his income. To carry on his business, in terms of practicalities, his customers would often have to visit his family home when making orders or addressing commercial matters. Following his arrest, however, many of his customers were unwilling to come to his home considering police interest in his activities and a fear of being drawn to the attention of the police. There was also a further practical concern for O’Donovan Rossa: his business traded alcohol, and on each occasion when he sought a licence to trade, the police obstructed it. True to character, O’Donovan Rossa always challenged the police opposition to a renewal of his licence, and putting him to much expense and trouble, he would appeal the decision to not renew his licence to a superior court. On each occasion he won, considering that ‘no charge of keeping an irregular house could be sustained’.54 This continued opposition to the renewal of his alcohol licence represented for O’Donovan Rossa part of what he perceived to be an official ‘system of terrorism,’ designed to subvert his business arising from his political beliefs.55 Symbolically, within his shop, O’Donovan Rossa also chose to display a gun and a pike ostensibly this was to warn off potential thieves or burglars, but in reality was to prove to those interested in advanced nationalism that there was no problem with the owning of a weapon. Considering whom he was, however, and that he had pleaded guilty of conspiracy, he was approached on several occasions by Charles O’Connell, the new Resident Magistrate appointed to replace George Fitzmaurice. O’Connell, despite his position, was representative of the constitutional nationalist persuasion and was married to Kathleen O’Connell, Daniel O’Connell’s daughter. O’Connell had warned O’Donovan Rossa that the gun and pike had to be removed from his shop at once as he was ‘disturbing the community’.56 O’Donovan Rossa protested that their display was not illegal and he would be keeping them above his counter. Pressing O’Connell as to who in the community was protesting against his display, O’Connell explained it caused great alarm to the respectable people in Skibbereen, and that if they were not removed, he would have O’Donovan Rossa brought up for sentence in Court on his plea of guilty the previous year. Displaying his rebellious streak, before ejecting O’Connell from his shop, O’Donovan Rossa angrily exclaimed that: ‘Respectable people are honest people and are in no way afraid of having a rifle or pike in my shop; that it was robbers, and thieves who were afraid of such things and I would not give up my rights for such things.’57
Within days, McCarthy Dowling, O’Donovan Rossa’s solicitor, followed up O’Connell’s visit to the Skibbereen shop. It was apparent to O’Donovan Rossa that O’Connell had been talking with McCarthy Dowling about the rifle and pike display. McCarthy Dowling pleaded with O’Donovan Rossa to take down the offending display and give it to him, where he would keep it in safe possession. O’Donovan Rossa still refused to oblige the request. In fact, in
