Sacred Heart Church,
Ferrybank   

Interpreting the Barron Will:

In his bid to interpret the Barron Will Brownrigg first turned to his ecclesiastical superiors for advice. He was wondering if complying with the terms of the Barron Will would be tantamount to agreeing to the erection of  a semi-private oratory over which he or his successors would have little control.  He wrote to Dr. William Walsh, the Archbishop of  Dublin and to Cardinal Logue of Armagh.  The Cardinal didn't feel competent to advise the bishop one way or other,  nor did he really advert to the deeper implications of the problem. He knew that there was a precedent for 'private chapels' such as the Corsini Chapel in St. John Lateran's in Rome but whether such a private chapel could be sanctioned for Ferrybank he did not know. He referred the Bishop to the professor of Canon Law at Maynooth. "It would be a pity to lose the grant" he wrote and "with regard to the mausoleum ... it affords a splendid opportunity of adding a magnificent chapel to the church, if the Trustees would agree to it" (Logue to Brownrigg, 23 October 1902). This he felt "would completely carry out the intentions of the testator".

The reply of the Archbishop of Dublin was more directive. It  was as trenchant as it was cunning. He warned his suffragan bishop against leaving a "legacy of confusion" to his successors. Sanctioning the erection of monuments inside the church and allowing inscriptions to be placed on them would be a recipe for "future difficulty and unpleasantness". What if the Irish heir should at some future time be a Protestant and insist on putting up an inscription offensive to Catholics?  "Could any Catholic proprietor suppose that the Bishop would or could, allow a church to be used for public worship in which an inscription of a Protestant, and possibly  even offensively anti-Catholic character was put before the eyes of the people"? ( Walsh to Brownrigg, 22 October 1902). The tone of the Archbishop's letter was alarmist to say the least. He went on to tell Bishop Brownrigg in no uncertain terms that  "of course there could be no question of consecrating a church, with such legal rights secured in lay hands" and "if the Bishop's right to control the inscriptions, monuments etc., be not recognised, there is inevitably a possibility that the church might at some time have to be closed". But such an eventuality was something that the archbishop did not seriously contemplate.  He suggested to Bishop Brownrigg that he should tell the Trustees of the Barron Will that "the only difficulty to be got over was one of a legal kind arising out of the ecclesiastical law" even though he did "not know of any canonical obstacle in the way of the Bishop's sanctioning the building of the church". What he suggested was that  "the matter (be) handed over to two lawyers, each party nominating one, who would no doubt be able, after half-an-hour's talk, to draw up a form of settlement that both sides would regard as satisfactory". He even offered to put Bishop Brownrigg in touch with a "legal friend in whose knowledge and skill (he) could confide". Whether Bishop Brownrigg scrupulously followed the advice of his metropolitan is not clear. What we do know for certain, however,  is that he sought legal advice, and lots of it.

 Legal Counsel:

Within a week of receiving Archbishop's Walsh's letter, Bishop Brownrigg was in receipt of  legal advice from a Dublin-based solicitor, by the name of MacDermot. It would appear that the Bishop had written to MacDermot seeking a legal construction for a number of  terms and categories as used in the Will. In particular he wanted to know that if he were to sanction the reservation and appropriation of  one wall of the church for tablets and inscriptions commemorative of the Barron family would not this in effect be conferring on the Irish heir and his successors the right in law to claim " the exclusive use of the surface of the said wall on the inside and on the outside of the church for the purpose named, so that no pictures could be hung on said wall unless with permission from the heir". What was there then to stop the heir from carving "inscriptions ... even of an ... irreligious, heretical or pagan character" on the said tablets? But the greatest concern of the Bishop was how such a concession would affect the ownership of the church. Would it make it for all intents and purposes a 'private chapel' over which he or his successors would have little control! Finally the matter of the mausoleum was a cause for concern. Would it mean that the testator and members of his family would now have the right to be buried in it or even in the church itself? "If one of the Barron family died a Protestant, would we be obliged by civil law to allow his remains to be buried or deposited in the mausoleum"? ( Brownrigg to MacDermot, 28 October 1902).  The big difficulty here as the bishop saw it was the "strict ecclesiastical law against burying heretics in Catholic burial ground", not to mention burying them inside the precincts of a Catholic church building.  The Bishop was wondering if he could exact a guarantee from the Trustees that no Protestant descendants would be interred in the mausoleum and that no inscription hostile to Catholic sentiment would be erected on the walls of the church. The scenario that Bishop Brownrigg wanted to avoid at all costs was the withholding of his sanction which would in effect give the Trustees a free hand to proceed to build the church nearby and without any interference whatever from the Bishop.

The queries raised by the Bishop stretched the legal acumen of MacDermot. In a series of letters to the Bishop he seemed less certain of his legal footing as time went on.  At first he suggested that the mere fact the proposed church would be built on the site of the existing one would be enough to secure its legal title for the people of Ferrybank He assumed that  the 1830 Lease on the land on which the church stood would have been vested in the Trustees of the parish. In a letter dated October 31, 1902 the solicitor wrote to the Bishop:

            it seems to me on a survey of the case that having regard to the Lease of 1830 which I assume is vested in Trustees for the Parish that if the church qua church is erected in lieu and replacement or even in substitution for the existing church and built on the site leased for the former church there is no peril that the parochial control of the church can at any future time be successfully assailed.

The solicitor abandoned this proposed escape route from the legal quagmire of the Barron Will when the Bishop wrote back reminding him that the existing church was not  in fact vested in Trustees for the Parish and that no rent had ever been asked for or paid in respect of the said Lease. MacDermot now suggested that "the Trustees should execute a short deed reciting your sanction to erection of the church on the Leased Site and a condition that the Tablets be attached to the church wall in conformity with the provisions of the Will; should from time to time before erection be subject to the sanction of the Catholic Bishop of the diocese for the time being as to their character and nature"  (MacDermot to Brownrigg, 3 November, 1902). But the Bishop was not impressed. It would appear that he was anxious to take his difficulties to a higher court.

On October 24, 1902 he formulated a number of  "Points for Counsel's Opinion" arising from the Barron Will. Counsel responded at some length on 17 March  1903.

With regard to the vexed question of the appropriation of wall space on one wall of the church for the purpose of erecting tablets bearing inscriptions Counsel was of the opinion that this meant "the internal wall surface on one side....the Irish heir would be entitled to appropriate any portion or portions of this space to the erection of one or more tablet or tablets". In the event, however, of an objectionable inscription being proposed "the Bishop, if aware of the intention to erect such a tablet would of course not permit its erection; and under such circumstances an injunction would not be granted to compel its being allowed to be erected". The best way of ensuring compliance in this regard was  "to have a short agreement or deed executed between the Most Rev. Dr. Brownrigg on the one part and the Trustees on the other" whereby "no inscription or mural tablet shall be placed in any part of the church or mausoleum without the previous approval in writing of the Bishop of Ossory for the time being". Such agreement would not convey any "property " rights to the Irish heir. This legal advice would seem to have set the Bishop's mind at ease.

But the matter of the mausoleum was still extant. In particular the Bishop was concerned about the burial rights that would accrue to the Barron family as a result. Would the Bishop be entitled to bar a member of the Barron family who might have become Protestant from being buried therein? The opinion of  legal counsel was that: "If the mausoleum be erected with the sanction of the Bishop he would ...be bound to permit the remains of the Testator to be interred therein and (b) to permit several members of the Ballyneale branch of the Barron family as they die off to be interred in the mausoleum".

The Bishop was in a 'no win' situation. He was under attack on several fronts. While  the content and location of mural inscriptions were matters that pertained to the future (and could be taken care of as they arose) the mausoleum issue had to be settled right now before any building could get under way. £3,000 had been allocated for this part of the project and there was no way it could be written out of the script. Once in place members of the Barron family (Catholic or Protestant) had a legal right to be interred there should they so wish. While this legal advice would not have been to the Bishop's liking, he was nevertheless conscious of the terms of the Will. The Trustees had absolute discretion in determining whether the conditions being imposed by Bishop were unreasonable or otherwise. Should they decide that such conditions were unreasonable they were then obliged to proceed with building the church and mausoleum nearby over which the Bishop would have absolutely no control. This was the very last thing any bishop would have wanted.

Getting around the 'mausoleum issue':

Having gone down the legal road as far as he could go, the Bishop now turned to his architect, Mr. Byrne. The final accommodation between the Bishop and the Trustees would seem to have drawn on a combination of the of legal advice already obtained and the skills of the two sets of architects working in unison.  A gentlemanly agreement between the two sets of architects was obviously arrived at because on 12 April 1903 Bishop Brownrigg was able to write to the Trustees of Barron Will giving his sanction for the building of the present church:

            With reference to the legacies of £6,000 and £3,000 given to you by said Will, the former being for the erection of  a Catholic Church at Ferrybank, County Waterford, Ireland, according to the directions specified in clause 13 of the said Will, and the latter being for the erection of a mausoleum commemorative of the testator's family as provided for by clause 14 of the said Will I the undersigned the Right Reverend Abraham Brownrigg, D.D., Bishop of Ossory, within whose diocese Ferrybank is situate hereby testify my sanction (as required by clause 13 of the said Will) for the erection of the said church and of the said mausoleum adjoining as directed by clause 14 of the said Will in accordance with the plans and specifications prepared by Mr. G. E. Ashlin, your architect, with such modifications thereof as you may from time to time in the course of construction find necessary and desirable, the said plans and specifications having for the purposes and identification been signed by him on your behalf and by Mr. Byrne as architect on my behalf.

                                    Dated this 6th day of April 1903

                                        + Abraham Brownrigg,

                                            Bishop of Ossory.

The document carrying the bishop's sanction for the building of the new church is remarkable for its brevity and generality. There is no reference to the appropriation of wall space for plaques or monuments. It would appear that the two sets of architects worked to a suitable plan and specification to which both the Bishop and the Trustees were able to agree. They were empowered to make the necessary  modifications as might be deemed necessary during the course of the construction.  The mausoleum would seem to have been accommodated through the inclusion of a special stone-vaulted chapel in the right-hand corner of the church which is presently the Blessed Sacrament Chapel. According to Jeremy Williams this "stone vaulted chapel alongside the chancel with its floor of restrained abstract mosaic and delicately stoned glass" is "a miniature version of Myshall"  Co. Carlow. Underneath the stone-vaulted chapel is a purpose-built vault or burial place but no member of the Barron family would ever seem to have been buried there. In the architect's plans the revised design for the floor of  the mausoleum is dated May 1908 and the details of the shelves to the mausoleum, July 1911.

The only commemorative plaque to the H. P.  T. Barron is neatly tucked away in an alcove in what used to be the baptistery on the left as one enters the church. It was re-located there from the mausoleum by Father McGrath in the post-Vatican II alterations of the church. The monument is certainly less conspicuous and more impressive aesthetically than the one to his father in St. John's Church, Waterford. It bears the exact inscription  as specified in the Will.

Why no member of the Barron family should ever seem to have been buried in the mausoleum is not clear. After all much time and effort had been expended in trying to meet the terms of the Barron Will with regard to it. The oral tradition in Ferrybank proffers its own explanation.  The story is told that when Dr. Brownrigg was ready to proceed with the consecration of the new church a messenger arrived from the Irish heir of the Barron family requesting that the ceremony be delayed for half an hour late so that he might be present. The Bishop ignored the plea and started at the pre-arranged time. The Barron representatives were so incensed by this indignity that they vowed to have nothing further to do with the church. Whether the story is true or apocryphal we may never know.

Surrender of  Grave Spaces:

When it became apparent that the new church was going to be built it was necessary that those who owning graves or burial rights on the east side adjacent to the old church would surrender such space in part or in whole as not to impede the development. In all about fifteen families were affected. Father Thomas Brophy, C.C. approached each of the families in turn and obtained their consent. He informed Bishop Brownrigg of same by letter on 16 March 1903. Among those affected were the following or their representatives:

John & Ellen Fitzpatrick, Newrath,

Edward Phelan, 4 Sion Row,

Walter Walsh, Hennessey's Road,

Michael & Margaret Shalloe, The Quay, Waterford,

John Hicks, Ferrybank & Mrs. Martin Phelan, Ferrybank,

George Harper, Rockshire Road, Ferrybank,

Ellen Fitzpatrick, Sallypark &  Edward Phelan, 4 Sion Row,

P. Nolan, 9 Sion Row,

Thomas Walsh, 5 St. Ignatius Street,

M. Phelan, Ferrybank,

In several cases all that was surrendered was 12-18 inches leading one to suspect that the old church occupied more or less the same space as the present one.

The coast was now clear for the Bishop to issue his sanction. All hurdles had been cleared. The work of taking down the old church began a few months later, or as Carrigan relates in the early Summer of 1903. The motto of  the Barron family "audaces fortuna juvat" (fortune favours the bold) might well be applied not only to the family to which it belongs but indeed to all who played a part in ensuring that the conditions of the Barron Will would not prove insurmountable. Credit is due in particular to Bishop Abraham Brownrigg who navigated his way through a legal minefield and secured for Ferrybank an aesthetic materpiece - the Church of the Sacred Heart.