inveterate malice, the persecution and utter ruin of Desmond were well calculated to gratify-viz. the earl, Edward Butler, Edmund Butler, Theobald Butler, and Piers Butler. Among the other five were the baron Dunboyn, and the bishop of Waterford, who, for aught we know, may also have been Butlers.

To enable the reader duly to appreciate the value of this proclamation, let him answer the question, what chance of justice would a whig have stood, if a bill of indictment were to be framed against him by a host of refugees during the American revolution-a recusant monk or friar from one of Danton's tribunals-or a defender from a band of envenomed Orangemen ? Even such chance had Desmond before a council composed one half at least of the house of Ormonde, his bitter and all-powerful enemies-and the other half probably under the direct influence of that rival family.

Those who consider with what facility, rapacity and ambition, in all ages, have forged pretexts to warrant their lawless outrages and depredation, will readily admit that the most serious of these items were in all probability forged. For the declaration of hostilities, which took place, it was necessary to find some pretence. And it is only to be wondered at, that the accusations were not more substantial. But were they all judicially established, they would not warrant the awful devastation which followed, and which cannot be contemplated without horror and detestation.

How extremely difficult it is at this distance of time and place, to disprove any assertions whatever, which wear the semblance of plausibility, how false soever they may be, must be obvious to the meanest capacity. For instance, had this proclamation stated that Desmond had murdered five hundred Englishmen in their beds-set fire to Corke poisoned the wells-or blown up part of the English armywe could not disprove it at present. We might, indeed, by a combination of circumstances, prove the allegations so utterly improbable, as to destroy all confidence in them. But to establish the complete negative of them would be absolutely impossible. In the investigation, therefore, of this tissue of accusations, I must necessarily labour under considerable difficulty. But I hope the reader will have the candour to agree, if I make it appear that six or seven of them are futile-one or two absolutely false-and one or two utterly improbable -that the remainder are undeserving of credit.

The proclamation is headed "the erie of Desmond's treasons articulated." Surely the first vague article about practising to subvert the state-the 4th about strangers entertained by his permissionthe 5th, wherein he is charged with "letting his brethren slip, after the murder of Davells, without reproving them"-the 6th, about giving place to the strangers to escape-the 7th, about his returning to Kerry, contrary to the commandment of the lord justice-the 9th, about setting strangers at liberty-the 12th wherein he is charged with refusing many persuasions, friendly counsels, &c. and the 13th wherein he is charged with refusing to deliver up Dr. Saunders, do not belong to the class of treasons, and, introduced here, are futile to the last degree.

The 5th article requires further consideration. One branch of it states that Desmond "commended speciallie the slaughter of Edward

Duffe, an Englishman, who, at the said murthering, laie in the next bed unto Davells."

Now even if he had "speciallie commended this slaughter," it furnishes no ground for proclaiming him a traitor-for setting a price on his head and slaughtering his unoffending tenantry, after having desolated the country by fire. To commend murder specially, or otherwise, displays a very wicked disposition: but however we may abhor such odious commendation, it is not cognizable by any court, nor punishable by any law. Therefore its introduction appears only intended to swell the list of charges; to render the devoted nobleman odious; and to reconcile the world to the destruction prepared for him. But the fact is, that the assertion is not only untrue, but the very reverse of truth; for the earl utterly disapproved and reprobated the flagitious act, according to Hooker himself, who explicitly states this fact a few pages before the proclamation. "The earl himself, when he heard hereof was marvellouslie greeved and offended with his brother, and gave him such sharpe speeches, that it was thought they would not so soone have been freendes againe."196 Camden confirms the opinion of Hooker. "The earl, when he heard it, condemned the fact, detesting it with all his heart."197

Nothing can be more clear and explicit than these statements. They stamp LIE in broad characters on this particular of the accusations, and prove, to the conviction of every man, not wilfully blind, that the accusers of Desmond, for the gratification of their hostility to him, had no scruple about recurring to flagrant falsehood in order to secure his destruction. Had the entire privy council come into a court of justice, and sworn to all the accusations in one mass, the proof of the perjury in the one instance would nullify their testimony as to all the others. And it would not be unreasonable to apply the rule in this case, where a notorious falsehood is unblushingly asserted, to nullify the other assertions from the same quarter, although we have no deposition.

The falsehood of the fifteenth article can be established with almost as much certainty as that of the fifth. All the letters and messages of Desmond, abounded in professions of loyalty, utterly inconsistent with the tenor of this accusation, even if we suppose him entirely insincere. About a month previous to the proclamation he had, moreover, as we have seen, delivered his only child, together with bishop Haly and a Franciscan friar, to the deputy as hostagesand the letter of the 30th, which was sent two days previous to his denunciation, does not warrant the most remote idea of "disturbing the whole state of Ireland." Even if he had such an intention, he

An allegation somewhat more absurd than this appears against Desmond in Cox and other writers, which I adduce merely to show how predominant has been the spirit of falsehood in his case. "He wrote, on the 20th of November, 1579, an arrogant letter to the lord justice, importing that he and his brethren were entered into the defence of the catholic faith, under the protection of the pope and the

190 Hollinshed, VI. 410.

197 Camden, 237.

would be an arrant fool, to announce it, so as to enable his enemies to defeat his purpose. Of the above letter, Hooker states-" He returned his answer by a letter, dated at Crogh, the 30th of October, 1579, vsing therein nothing but triflings and delaies, requiring restitution for old wrongs and injuries, and iustifieing himselfe to be a good subiect, though he doo not yeeld to the foresaid articles."198

This would be abundantly sufficient to prove the fallacy of the article. But the disproof does not rest wholly on this ground. The queen's forces had recently and signally defeated Sir John Desmond, and were in full force, elated with their victory. After having made so many zealous efforts to avoid being driven to extremities, while his brother was in the field with a powerful body of troops, it would have been the height of madness to have provoked the wrath of the government by such a rodomontade declaration, at a time when his chances of success in a struggle with that government were wholly annihilated. I hope these facts and inferences are enough to satisfy every reader that this charge is utterly destitute of foundation.

Two other items of the proclamation are so directly contradictory of each other, that we are lost in admiration at the folly of those who coupled them together.

By the 13th article he is accused of "having broken down his castels, burnt his townes, and desolated his countries aforesaid, to the intent her majesty's forces and subjects shall not be succoured nor refreshed." Yet in the very next, the fourteenth, he is accused of "dailie looking for a supply of foreigners, and dailie soliciting the chiefe men of the Irish countries to join him in this his most execrable and rebellious enterprize." The absurdity and wickedness of these accusations are palpable to the meanest capacity. They carry fraud more legibly on their forehead than the former one. Desmond, as

king of Spain-and invited the lord justice to join with them !"199 That is to say, lord Desmond, a Roman Catholic, a rebel, defeated, and prostrate in strength and hopes, invites the lord justice of Ireland, a protestant, at the head of a victorious army, to join him in rebellion against his sovereign! Has the world ever exhibited a much more complete specimen of stupidity and malice than appears in this charge? Those are but poor artists in the vile trade of lying, who concoct their stories so as to carry condemnation imprinted on their foreheads, and to prevent even those who would wish them true, from giving them credit; for the most bigoted enemy of the Irish would reject this miserable tale.

Camden has been absurd enough to perpetuate this story, and to disgrace his life of Elizabeth by the narration. " Desmond and his brethren, though lurking and hiding their heads, signified to the lord justice in a long letter, that they had undertaken the protection of the Catholic faith in Ireland, and that by authority of the bishop of Rome, and direction of the Catholic king: and therefore they do kindly advise him to join with them in so pious and meritorious a cause for the salvation of his own soul! !"9200

198 Hooker, apud Hollinshed, VI. 423.

199 Cox, 361. 200 Camden, 240.

appears by his letter to Ormonde, and the whole tenor of his conduct, was a man of talents. The veriest idiot that ever existed, if he meditated insurrection or rebellion, would not destroy his castles, or burn his towns, and desolate his country.

The "distribution of the ordinance and artillery of the forts, unto the rebels," which is one of the most important items, rests on so rotten a foundation, as not to be worth a moment's notice. It was discovered by "a note found in the portmantieu of doctor Allen, lately slaine in the encounter executed by sir Nicholas Malbie!"

The flagrant forgery perpetrated by sir George Carew, without any scruple of conscience, and his robbery of the Spaniard's despatches, as stated in the sixth chapter, pretty clearly show what degree of credit is to be attached to "notes found in portmanteaus," and how delicate a sense of honour was entertained by the officers then employed against the Irish.

On this article, respecting "the ordinance and artillery," it may be asked, had such a circumstance, which must have been scarcely possible to be concealed, taken place, is it at all supposable that it should not have been discovered till the note was found in doctor Allen's portmanteau ?* To this question no answer can be given that will not stamp rank forgery on this "portmanteau" story.

The accusation contained in the eleventh article is obviously incorrect. The battle at Monaster Ena was fought during the life

*This "note" of Dr. Allen's, is entitled to further consideration. Perjury and forgery were, during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, among the most potent engines of government, when any sinister or flagitious purpose was to be effected. The instances of the employment of these vile means are innumerable, and lie scattered throughout the histories of that period. The destruction of Mary queen of Scots was accomplished in a great degree by such means. To the extent of the use of forgery in the case of Mary, Camden bears ample testimony:

"Verily there were at this time some subtile ways taken to try how men stood affected. COUNTERFEIT LETTERS were privily sent in the name of the queen of Scots and the fugitives, and left in Pupists houses. Spies were sent abroad up and down the country, to take notice of people's discourse, and lay hold of their words. Reporters of vain and idle stories were admitted and credited."201

These "counterfeit letters" to entrap the Roman Catholics of England, were written about the same period, as the "note" so conveniently "found" in Dr. Allen's portmanteau, and by the same kind of

men.

On their use in Ireland, and the pernicious effects they produced on the affairs of the insurgents, Camden makes the following remark :

The deputy Mountjoy "so cunningly cherished a distrust which. he had wrought amongst the rebels, by counterfeit letters, that misdoubting one another, they parted asunder."2"

201 Camden, 294.

202 Idem, 584.

time of sir William Drury,203 several months before the proclamation appeared: and if the earl had been guilty of so palpable an act of rebellion, as "sending his principal men, servitors, and followers, and his household servants, as also his chief captains, to assail sir Nicholas Malbie," can it be supposed for a moment, that the government would have temporized with him any longer?-that they would not at once immediately after the signal defeat of sir John Desmond in that battle have pursued him with fire and sword, as they afterwards did? that they would have allowed him time to acquire strength? In a word, that he would have sent his "chief captains," &c. to the field, thus exposing himself to all the consequences of rebellion, without taking all the chances in his power, for success, by joining his brother with all his forces ?

The contest continued for three years with every possible advantage on the part of the government, and with the utmost disparity of force on that of Desmond. The horrid waste of human life, and the depredation of property with which it tarnished the Irish annals, belong to the next chapter. Suffice it here to state, that John Desmond was killed in 1582, and the earl, who had been reduced to the most abject distress, and forced to fly from place to place to save his life, was murdered in 1583. The manner of his death was as follows.

The earl of Ormonde, his deadly enemy, pursued him and his wretched adherents, with the most indefatigable rancour and industry. He finally retreated to a bog, with a few of his followers, whose fidelity remained unimpaired by his fallen fortunes. When he was at the lowest ebb, they ventured out, and seized some cattle for his subsistence. The owner of the cattle, and some soldiers of an English garrison pursued the prey to the bog. Seeing a light at some distance in a miserable hut, they advanced under the guidance of one Kelly, of Moriarta. When they entered the hut, they found only one venerable old man, feeble and languid, stretched before the fire. Kelly brutally attacked and wounded him, without knowing who he was. The hapless old man invoked the ruffian to spare his life; and supposing, as was natural, that the revelation of his name would/inspire pity and reverence, and insure his life, cried out-" Spare me I am the earl of Desmond." He was miserably deceived. The disclosure produced an effect diametrically opposite to his expectations. It hastened his end. Kelly chopped off his head, and conveyed it to Ormonde, who forwarded it to Elizabeth, by whose order it was impaled on London bridge. 204

Thus fell, a victim to the malice and rapacity of his enemies, a nobleman whose estates exceeded in extent those of any other English subject. They were forfeited to the crown, and above one-third of

* "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."205

203 Hollinshed, VI. 416. 204 Smith's Kerry, 266. 206 Cox, 392.