The Times - 1811, Co. Tipperary, Ireland
Ireland Genealogy Projects Archives
Tipperary Index
Tipperary Newspapers
Copyright
Contributed by Mary Heaphy
________________________________________

THE TIMES - 1811

Use Ctrl-F to Find in Page

Times of 16th Feb. 1811

1811. "The Caravats and Shanavests" - faction fighters
in South Tipperary - Fethard. Evidence given at a
Special Commission at Clonmel [6 Feb. 1811] before the
Chief Baron [Lord Norbury ] taken from the Times of 16th
Feb. 1811. Government feared they were political.

JAMES SLATTERY, examined, stated that the Caravats were
going on for two years before the Shanavests stirred.
Shanavests so called because they wore old waistcoats.
On questioning, he admitted that his uncle, called
"Paudeen Car" [Gar], was a ringleader and commander of
the Shanavests, but was now a poor old man not able to
take command. Said a man named HEALY or HANLY was
hanged; he was presented by the Shanavests and Paudeen
Car said he would not leave the place of execution, till
he saw the "Caravat" around the fellow's neck, and from
that time that faction were called Caravats. Before
that, Healy's party were called the Moyle Rangers and
the Shanavests were called Paudeen Car's Party. Healy
was hanged for burning the house of a man, who had taken
land over his neighbour's head. He states that these
were the parties engaged in an affray at the Races of
Coolmoyne in August.

NICHOLAS SEXTON, examined, gave similar evidence and
proved that all these connected with these illegal
associations had no other object than to defend
themselves against the attacks by one faction on the
other.

Rev. JOHN RYAN P.P Fethard , examined. Was P.P Fethard
for 8 years last October, knew his Parishioners and was
at Coolmoyne Races in September, the day of the fight;
heard a shot fired in the direction of the Shanavest
party. Cross examined by the Solicitor General, he said
that, at the fair he saw some Shanavests strike the
Caravats. It is notorious in his parish who the Caravats
and Shanavests are; does not know the real cause of
their feud; both parties attend Divine Service
indiscriminately; thinks feuds are confined to the lower
orders; is not sure whether any respectable parishioner
joined them. Both parties are equally criminal, but the
taking of arms, is confined exclusively to the two
parties concerned in these feuds.