this kind on record, of which, when I resume the subject, in a subsequent part of this work, I shall give some of the most striking. I confine myself, for the present, to a few, of which the chief is that of the earl of Desmond, whose large estates held out temptations to the rapacity of Ralph De Ufford, lord justice, who administered the government, under Edward III. To this earl a summons was sent to attend parliament, with which he declined compliance. On this sole, this miserable pretext, the lord justice immediately raised an army,* and, meeting with no resistance, seized all his vast possessions, *"This Uffort, lord justice, on pain of forfeiture of all his lands, commanded the earl of Desmond to make his personal appearance at a parliament which he called to be holden at Dublin, there to begin the seventh of June; and, because the earl refused to come, according to the summons, he raised the king's standard, and, with an army, marched into Munster, and there seized the earl's possessions into the king's hands, letting them forth to farm, for an annual rent, unto other persons. And, whilst he yet remained in Munster, he devised ways how to have the earl of Desmond apprehended; which being brought to pass, he afterwards delivered him upon mainprise of these sureties, whose names ensue : William De Burgh, earl of Ulster; James Butler, earl of Ormond; Richard Tute, Nicholas Verdon, Morice Rochford, Eustace Le Powre, Gerald De Rochford, John Fitzrobert Powre, Robert Barrie, Maurice Fitzgerald, John Wellesly, Walter Le Fant, Richard Rokelly, Henry Traherne, Roger Powre, John Lenfant, Roger Powre, Matthew Fitzhenrie, Richard Wallers, Edmond Burgh, son to the earl of Ulster, knights; David Barrie, William Fitzgerald, Foulke De Fraxinus, Robert Fitzmaurice, Henry Fitzberklie, John Fitzgeorge De Roch, Thomas De Lees De Burgh; these (as ye have heard) were bound for the earl, and slaughtered his principal followers. He soon found means to seize the earl himself, and bound no less than twenty-seven of the nobility and gentry as sureties for his good behaviour. He afterwards summoned the earl before him, who, ❝finding his severity, thought it dangerous to appear, according to the condition of the recognizance, and therefore it was escheated into the exchequer.”73 Ufford rapaciously availed himself of this opportunity, and seized the estates of twenty-three of "the mainpernors," according to Hooker, or of eighteen, according to Cox.* Besides these acts of oppression, "he caused the earl of Kildare to be arrested, and committed to the castle of Dublin ;"74 indicted and imprisoned many others; annulled a number of charters; and "proceeded every way so roundly and severely, as the nobility, which were wont to suffer no controulment, did much distaste him."75 This case affords a proof how little dependence can be placed on the accounts given of Irish affairs by English writers: for, of this odious oppressor, who was a mere Verres, and, according to And because he made default, the lord justice verily took the advantage of the mainpernors, four of them only excepted, the two earls and two knights."76 * "Though the noblemen, and some of the knights, made a shift to get rid of this matter, yet eighteen of the knights lost their estates, and were utterly ruined thereby." 9977 Hollinshed, "was very rigorous, and, through persuasion (as was said) of his wife, more extreme and covetous than he otherwise would have been," "78 Sir John Davies says, "in troth, he was a singular good justicer." Hollinshed does not pretend to deny his severity and rigour, but charges it wholly to the account of his wife, who was "bent to prick him forward unto sharp dealings, and rigorous proceedings.' And further, "His lady, it would appear, was verily but a miserable woman, procuring him to EXTORTION AND BRIBERY."81 A very novel and extraordinary trait, truly, in the character of "a good justicer!" 9980 The case of another earl of Desmond, two hundred and fifty years later, is still more lamentable. Henry Sydney, the lord deputy, thirsting after his immense possessions, and desirous of driving him into rebellion, seized him, under the most flimsy pretexts, and carried him in duress, in an extensive circuit he made through the country. The earl finally effected an escape; and was peremptorily cited to appear before the earl, and to surrender his strongest fortresses. The ignominious treatment he had experienced, and the imminent danger he had escaped, deterred him from confiding his person into the deputy's hands. He was accordingly proclaimed a traitor, and his territories laid waste, with the 78 Hollinshed, VI. 255. 80 Hollinshed, VI. 255. 79 Davies, 154. most Vandalic rage, as shall be stated in the next note. The injustice with which he was treated, will appear palpable, from two of the items of the proclamation, by one of which he was charged with seeking for foreign and domestic aid ;* and, by another, at the same time, with destroying his castles, and burning his towns,† "to the intent her majesty's forces and subjects should not be succoured nor refreshed." It is difficult to decide whether the wickedness or absurdity of these accusations is the greater. If he intended to enter into rebellion, it would have been the quintessence of madness to destroy his castles. The one effectually destroys the other. It does not fall within my present view, to enter into detail on the progress of this war. Suffice it to say, that the earl was reduced to a most deplorable state of wretchedness; finally assassinated in a filthy cabin; and his estate, which consisted of five hundred and seventy-four "That he daily looketh for a further aid, and a new supply of foreigners, and daily soliciteth the chief men of the Irish counties to join with him in this, his most execrable and rebellious enterprize." +"That he hath not only refused to deliver up doctor Sanders and the Spaniards, which do daily accompany him; but hath broken down his castles, burned his towns, and desolated his countries aforehand, to the intent her majesty's forces and subjects shall not be succoured nor refreshed."'83 32 Hooker, apud Hollinshed, 424. 83 Ibid. thousand six hundred and twenty-eight acres, partly seized by government, and partly parcelled out among the British officers, who had been instrumental in goading him into resistance. When such were the temptations to civil war, and such the rewards for the desolation perpe "The earl of Desmond and his accomplices had forfeited a vast estate, amounting in all to 574,628 acres of land. The earl himself had a prodigious revenue, for these times; and perhaps greater than any other subject in her majesty's dominions."'84 Of this immense estate, portions were bestowed on the following undertakers : |