BACK

Carlow County - Ireland Genealogical Projects (IGP TM)


Sir Edward Crosbie
Apprehension, Trial & Execution
'DEFENCE'

Source: Mr. J. J. Woods


 [ Page 4 ]  Page 5  [ Back ]


Defence

John Finn, sworn.

Q.   Did you say these words to Sir Edward Crosbie, “Sir, I heard you say you never saw a pike; come with me, and I will shew you one”?

A.   I did.

Q.   By virtue of your oath, do you imagine, when you conducted me into the garden, that I expected to see any thing but a pike?

A.   I believe not.

Q.   Did I send to the post that day?

A.   You did.

Q.   About what time did the messenger return?

A.   About one o’clock.

Q.   Did he bring me a newspaper?

A.   The post was not come in, but he brought a newspaper from Mr. Mac Donald.

Q.   Did I not shave and shirt myself, with an intention of going to Carlow?

A.   You did.

Q.   Do you know I intended to go to Carlow?

A.   I did; I heard you order your horses to get ready to go to Carlow.

Q.   Do you remember saying these words, “We may all now declare what we are?”

A.   I believe I did.

Q.   Have you not acknowledged yourself an United-Irishman?

A.   I did.

Q.   Where were you sworn?

A.   I was sworn in Baltinglass.

Q.   How long since were you sworn?

A.   It is not a year since.

Q.   How many oaths have you taken?

A.   Two.

Q.   By virtue of your oath, did you ever take an oath to murder your Protestant brethren?

A.   As far as I understand the oath, I did not.

Q.   Have you heard Myler declare, that myself, my wife, and my infant daughter Dora, were to be put to death?

A.   I never did.

Q.   What religion are you of?

A.   A Roman-Catholic.

Q.   Were you always a Roman-Catholic?

A.   I was not.

Q.   Were you ever a Protestant?

A.   I went to Church for some years, while in your service.

Q.   Did you not continue to go to Church, when in my service?

A.   I did for some time afterwards.

Q.   Did you afterwards become a Roman-Catholic?

A.   I did, after leaving Mrs. Douglas.

Q.   What became of the mare, that I was going to ride to Carlow?

A.   I rode her out a little.[23]

Q.   by the Court. Did you see, or do you believe, that Sir Edward Crosbie reviewed the men that night?

A.   I did not, and I do not believe he could have done so without my knowledge.

Q.   Do you remember coming up with a jug, tumbler, &c.?

A.   I do.

Q.   How long have you known me?

A.   Fifteen or sixteen years.

Q.   Have I the character of a cruel man?

A.   No, you have not.

Q.   Have I the character of a just man?

A.   I always heard you had.

Mary Lee, sworn.[24]

Q.   What religion are you of?

A.   A protestant.

Q.   Do you remember Thursday, May 24?

A.   Yes, perfectly well.

Q.   Did you ever hear Myler say, myself, my wife, and my little Dora, were to be put to death?[25]

A.   Yes, he told me so.

Q.   Did you hear of any shocking insurrection having taken place in Dublin?

A.   I did.

Q.   Suppose I had gone to Carlow that day, and that the rebels had succeeded, instead of the happy defeat, do you think, if they had the least suspicion of my having given information, would not my wife, children, and family, be put to death?

A.   I believe they would have been put to death.

Q.   from the Court. Do you believe, if the rebels had succeeded, would any of Sir Edward’s family have been put to death?

A.   I believe they would.

Q.   What time did I go to bed?

A.   As the clock was striking Twelve.

Q.   Do you think, from the time I returned from the garden with John Finn, I afterwards went out?

A.   I am positive that you did not.

Sir Edward declared, that he knew no act or part the rebels were to take, until three o’clock on Thursday, and then his servants publicly avowed it.

Bridget Curran, sworn.[26]

 

Q.   by the Court. Do you remember the night of May the 24th?

A.   I do.

Q.   Did you see me about eleven o’clock?

A.   I did.

Q.   Do you believe I went out of the house from that time till morning?

A.   I believe you did not.

Q.   Do you remember any conversation you had with me, relative to your brothers who were in jail?

A.   I do very well; I came one morning — had been crying. Sir Edward asked me, “what I was crying for?” I told him, my brothers were put in jail for being United-men. He told me, if they were put in for that, he would punish them himself, if he could.

Sir Edward Crosbie acknowledges, he has not done his duty; — he should have left his wife and family, and come in, and given information; — and throws himself on the mercy of the Court.

THE defence is here summed up in a few words only, and those conveying a sense the very reverse of that which it really expressed; for Sir Edward Crosbie solemnly asserted his innocence of the crimes laid to his charge. His defence was full and explicit, as we are confidently assured, and exactly of the same import with his solemn declaration, and the other particulars stated in his letter to Judge Downes, which was written and copied in the short space allowed him between his trial and his death.[27] The solemn declaration[28] here alluded to, which Sir Edward, in the moment immediately preceding his execution, first read, and then delivered to the Sheriff, runs thus:

“I most solemnly declare, in the presence of Almighty God, that I am not, nor ever have been, a Member of the Society of United-Irishmen; that I knew not their plans, excepting from the Report of the Secret Committee of the House of Commons; never was present at, nor knew of, their meetings; knew not their captains, lieutenants, or other officers, or committee-men in this county, before Thursday May the 24th, 1798, and then only one committee-man, Thomas Myler, by his own confession; or any officer or committee-man in any other county except by report, and then only, after they had been committed to prison. Lord Edward Fitzgerald[29] has long been known to be a leader; but I never had any communication with him by letter, nor ever saw him, except driving through the streets of Dublin in a phaeton or curricle; nor ever had the least communication with him by letter, or otherwise.”

      (Signed) “ Edward Wm. Crosbie. ”

 During the same awful period of time, which passed between his trial and execution, Sir Edward most solemnly declared his innocence to a clergyman who visited him, and from whose lips we received the information; as also to his friend Counsellor Powell,[30] who then likewise saw him. We cannot but remark, that the only two passages in the preceding Minutes, which relate to any thing advanced by Sir Edward in his defence, respect a kind of confession of his knowledge of the rebellious designs of his servants, though a few hours only before the battle of Carlow; and that he had omitted to give immediate information: and yet, we are assured, that not only his defence was copious, but that, during his trial, several question were put to him, which received appropriate answers.

Now if the situation of Sir Edward be duly considered at the time that he first came to the knowledge of his servants intentions; that he was peremptorily enjoined by them not to go to Carlow,[31] when, with an air of defiance, they thought proper to declare what they were; that he was completely at their mercy, his arms having, previous to this period, been removed to another place; that, from what he must unavoidably have known of the determined principles of United Irishmen, Sir Edward was well convinced, that any attempt to leave his premises would have been resisted; or if effected, at the hazard of his own life, and the certain destruction of his wife and children, (and that such apprehensions were not unfounded, appears clearly from the evidence before us.)

As these considerations, we are persuaded, would fully acquit him in the estimation of an impartial mind from every imputation of guilt, so we believe, and are assured, they would have produced the same effect in any regular court of justice. Sir Edward did all that, in such circumstances, it was in his power to do. He endeavoured to dissuade his servants, at the time, from the prosecution of their iniquitous designs; and afterwards, on the first opportunity, he tried to prevail on them to surrender themselves to Mr. Browne, a neighbouring magistrate, which they promised to do,[32] and some of them actually did.

The sentence of the Court-Martial is omitted in the above Minutes, but that, unhappily, can be supplied by the fatal event. At a late and unusual, if not unprecedented, hour of the evening, immediately on the return of the Proceedings with Major-General Sir Charles Asgill’s confirmation of the sentence, Sir Edward was taken from prison, and suffered the death of a common malefactor; to which he submitted with the firmness and dignity of conscious innocence.[33] Not satisfied with this, the soldiers, with savage fierceness and barbarity, severed his head from the body; and fixing it upon a pike, placed it upon Carlow gaol, in full view of his house, and in that of his unfortunate widow and children, every time they turned their eyes towards the town of Carlow. We are informed, that this last act of inhumanity was no part of the sentence; it could not, however, have been perpetrated without the knowledge of the officers present, and consequently without their acquiescence.

This horrid spectacle remained indeed but a short time; it being removed upon the marked disapprobation, and by the orders, of the then Lord-Lieutenant Earl Camden, as soon as the circumstance was reported to him; in consequence of which the separated parts were delivered to the widow. Still the savage disposition which suggested this horrid act, remained unsated; and such was the deplorable temper of the times, that no clergyman could be found, who would dare to perform the sacred rites of the church over the mutilated body. Lady Crosbie was therefore reduced to the necessity of depositing the remains of her sacrificed husband in her garden at View-Mount. Even about a twelvemonth after this fatal period, it was not without considerable opposition, that the body was removed by a worthy and respectable clergyman of the Church of England to a neighbouring church-yard, that it might receive the rites of Christian burial in consecrated ground.

In a time of open rebellion, when a man is taken with arms in his hands, in an act of hostility against his king and country, so that his guilt is manifest, and cannot be disproved; it may be necessary to strike terror into his confederates by a summary trial, and immediate execution. But how different is the case, when a gentleman of character, living peaceably in his own house, and entirely unarmed, is apprehended on the basis only of a vague suspicion, and incoherent rumours; when upon the strictest scrutiny, no papers, nor any other tokens of guilt, are found to criminate him; when the evidence at best could be but of a circumstantial nature, that might be disproved by the aid of proper witnesses, or so explained as to remove every ground of suspicion!

The unexpected precipitancy, therefore, of the trial in question, contrary to the express assurance of the commanding officer, as well as to the opinion which had been circulated, that a temporary confinement only was designed; — the prisoner also, contrary to all law and usage, having never been acquainted with the charges on which he was to be tried, which tended to defeat in a great degree every effort on the part of the prisoner to secure the attendance of such counsel and witnesses as might be necessary for his defence; — are circumstances no less cruel in themselves, that they are inconsistent with the mild spirit of British jurisprudence; which requires, that every advantage, and every opportunity of exculpation, should be afforded to prisoners on all occasions. — Moreover, the Mutiny Act expressly enacts, as before observed, that “No sentence of a General Court-Martial held in England can be put into execution, without the authority and approbation of the King; or in Ireland, without that of the Lord-Lieutenant.” Had this injunction been complied with in the present case, time would thereby have been allowed for consideration, and Sir Edw. Crosbie must have been safe. But, unhappily, by the proclamation issued by the Lord-Lieutenant by and with the advice of the Privy-Council, on the 24th of May 1798, this power was vested in all the General Officers commanding his Majesty’s forces.

Again; in the Minutes here presented to the public, it must be observed that no person is mentioned as Judge-Advocate, nor does any one appear to have acted as such during the whole trial. Indeed the friends of Sir Edward have been confidently assured by those who were present at the trial, that there was no Judge-Advocate. But by the 6th article of the 14th section of the Articles of War it appears, that a Judge-Advocate, or a competent deputy, is an essential part of a Court-Martial; who must be versed in the general doctrines of the law, in as far as they relate to the trial of crimes, and the weighing of evidence, in order to instruct and explain to the Court such points of law as may occur, and on which the Articles of War and Mutiny-Act may be silent.

Wherever this is the case, the rules of the common law of the land, to the benefit of which all British subjects are entitled for the protection of life and liberty, must be resorted to, and every material deviation from these rules, unless warranted by some express enactment of the military code, is, in fact, a punishable offence in the members of the Court-Martial, who may be indicted for the same in the King’s ordinary courts. The Judge-Advocate is also to administer the oath to the members of the Court; and it is generally considered as his duty to act officially as counsel to the accused, for the purpose of assisting him in the conduct of his defence; of adverting to the propriety of question asked by the Court; and of directing the prisoner as to the answers to be made. It is also required of him to warn the Court in case of deviation from forms in their proceedings, or of violation of material justice in their final sentence.[34] So that without this essential member, the Court must have been incomplete, the members of it not properly sworn in, and the prisoner deprived of that assistance and support, which in this case were singularly necessary, where Sir Edward Crosbie was bereft of proper counsel. On no occasion could the legal knowledge of a Judge-Advocate have been more requisite, the supposed crime being of a civil, and not of a military, nature; nor can we entertain the smallest doubt, but that had the Judge-Advocate or a proper deputy been present, Sir Edward Crosbie must have been fully acquitted.

It appears then from what has been stated, that the Court which tried Sir Edward Crosbie was incomplete; and if so, then no legal Court. From the Minutes, also, which are now before us, (and we are persuaded that the original Proceedings, could they be seen, by containing many particulars which are here omitted, together with a more correct detail of the evidence, would be, if possible, still more incontestably conclusive) it is plain, that neither of the charges brought against him were, in the most distant degree, proved against Sir Edward William Crosbie, viz.

It was not proved, in the first place, “That his conduct was either traitorous or rebellious; or that he either aided or abetted a most villainous conspiracy for the overthrow of his Majesty’s crown, and the extinction of all loyal subjects.” Nor was it proved, in the second place, “That he did endeavour to conceal persons, knowing them to be engaged in the above-mentioned project.”

But did we imagine, that the only object to be accomplished by us was to prove that Sir Edward William Crosbie was not legally convicted of the crimes for which he suffered, we should neither have submitted to a painful task, nor intruded upon the patience of our readers. But, being fully persuaded that it is in our power to remove every remaining ground of suspicion from his character and conduct, we think it not improper to subjoin a few remarks on those parts of the evidence which seem most to require explanation; not doubting, but we shall succeed in deducing from the evidence itself the most convincing tokens of Sir Edward’s perfect innocence.

It appears, then, from a summary view of the preceding evidence, that John Finn, Sir Edward Crosbie’s butler, and the servant who was chiefly about his person, having hear his master say, that he never saw a pike (and the time and manner in which this was heard, have been already explained[35]) offered to shew him one, if his master would accompany him into the garden. Sir Edward did so: but instead of one pike, he saw several, and six or seven persons employed in fixing the heads on the handles. The only expressions, according to the evidence, that were used by Sir Edward on the occasion, implied disapprobation. He remarked, “they were wicked, dangerous weapons.” This happened between nine and ten o’clock in the evening of Thursday the 24th of May 1798. Sir Edward continued in the garden about ten minutes.

After this, it does not appear that he was seen abroad any more that night. His own servants did not see him abroad again, neither did his labourer Patrick Walsh; and it is very confidently asserted by one of the maid servants,[36] that he did not go out any more. But about an hour after the above transaction, a number of persons, collected from the vicinity to the amount of more than one hundred, assembled in the neighbourhood of Sir Edward’s house. About the same time, and probably whilst Finn was attending on his master and mistress, a person was seen coming out of the hall-door of Sir Edward’s house, and addressing the mob. This person (as appears by the trial) two of the witnesses, James Gayner, and Edmund Burroughs, supposed, or were made to believe, was Sir Edward Crosbie.

At the time, as it came out in evidence, neither of these witnesses personally knew Sir Edward. Gayner, on being particularly questioned, declared that “he could not see the same description of person in Court,” though Sir Edward was then at this side. The fair and obvious conclusion from which premises is, that some other person was taken for Sir Edward Crosbie; and that person, there is reason to think, was Myler. If, then, Sir Edward Crosbie was not abroad that evening, except for a few minutes in the garden, when a small number only of persons were present, it is most certain he could not have reviewed the rebels; and such is Finn’s testimony, he declaring that he did not believe Sir Edward could have done it without his knowledge.

Again; Finn declares, that his master made no particular observation on what had happened at Carlow; at the same time giving it as his opinion, that the presence of the maid would have been no restraint on Sir Edward, had he had any observation to make on the occasion. This must be admitted to be a most improbable circumstance, on the supposition that Sir Edward was really implicated in the rebellion, and had actually entertained corrupt understanding with the agents of it. To this it may be added, that Finn (terrified at what had happened at Carlow) was anxious to be discharged from his master’s service, because he had heard that Sir Edward was considered as a disaffected man. Sir Edward, it is too true, was most industriously represented as such. — But when the rebels had thrown off the mask, and were in a state of actual dispersion after their attack on Carlow, Finn had then heard only, that his master was considered as disaffected; at the same time, that he was unable to adduce one single circumstance that had taken place during his whole service to justify the supposition. On the contrary, Finn declares, that he had frequently heard his master say, that he would not be an United-Irishman, nor an Orange-man, nor of any society contrary to law. Myler, moreover, who appears to have been more deeply implicated than Finn in the rebellion, did not believe that his master was an United-Irishman, however industriously he circulated such an opinion; and, as appears from the evidence of Rogers, was obliged to support that opinion by such pretences, as are obviously evasive, and unsupported by evidence: whereas, had Sir Edward Crosbie actually been an United-Irishman, and committed one single act declaratory of that character, it is scarcely possible that such circumstance could have been unknown to those servants about his person, who were confessedly of that description.

With respect to the circumstance of money having been given for the relief of men imprisoned, but as yet untried; so far from its being criminal, surely every man of feeling and benevolence must deem it a praise-worthy action; and in this light will it ever be viewed, we trust, in the British dominions. This circumstance took place in the month of February, previous to the assizes; when the gaol being thronged with persons confined on suspicion, many of whom were afterwards found perfectly innocent; a petition from the prisoners was sent round the country, praying temporary relief, in consideration of their being in the greatest want of the necessaries of life. Several gentlemen administered to their relief, to whom no guilt on that account has ever been imputed. Upon what principle then, it may be asked, is the same action brought forward as a crime against Sir Edward Crosbie? We are moreover authorized to subjoin, (what is unnoticed in the preceding Minutes) that Major Denis himself asked Sir Edward, in the course of the trial, whether he did not give money to maintain the United-Irishmen in gaol the last assizes.[37] Sir Edward at first replied in the negative, probably conceiving himself authorized to give a negative answer to a question that implied more than was justified by the fact. Upon the question being repeated, he acknowledged that he had desired Myler to give the prisoners something, as they had sent a petition round the country, signifying that they were starving, before the trial. Upon which, Major Denis and the Court, or a part thereof, shouted for joy. — We mention this, not only as an instance of the highest indecorum in a court of justice, and as a striking proof of the disgraceful manner in which this unprecedented trial was conducted; but more particularly, by pointing out the avidity with which every circumstance was received, which, in the opinion of his Judges, tended to the condemnation of Sir Edward; and in what way the most innocent and even laudable fact became distorted into an act of criminality; and as furnishing conviction to every unprejudiced mind, that Sir Edward Crosbie must have been perfectly free from all charge of guilt, when evidence, more conclusive, was not to be produced against him.

It remains now only to notice one additional circumstance, which, it is supposed, was tortured into a proof of the second charge, namely, the writing and ante-dating Finn’s discharge. It is utterly impossible to say, what was the predominant impression on the mind of Sir Edward in the instant of granting the discharge in question, at a moment of agitation and surprize; whether it was a sudden impulse of compassion, that induced him to comply with the request of one who had hitherto been faithful in his service, and had lived with him or his sister from infancy; who now appeared struck with horror and remorse at the guilt he had incurred; and who, under the influence of Sir Edward’s dissuasions, it might be reasonably hoped, would cautiously avoid being implicated farther in the like crimes, could he escape with life. The action was confessedly unguarded and injudicious, but certainly not in the least degree criminal; and we have the best law authority to say, it would not be construed as such in any court of justice. It was no concealment. It did not certify an alibi. It could not be brought in proof that the object of it was not with the rebels, or at the battle of Carlow. It could not invalidate any one circumstance relating to that, or any other, transaction in which he might have been engaged. It did not even certify, that he quitted his master’s house; but only, that he might have left his master two days before the 25th of May. — As to any thing farther in the course of the evidence that could be tortured into a charge against Sir Edward, it is so perfectly weak and frivolous, that we should trespass on the patience of our readers by commenting upon it.

Should we now proceed to consider the character and circumstances of the witnesses, and the means that were used to extort from them the accusations against Sir Edward Crosbie, had they even laid any thing criminal to his charge, we should not hesitate to pronounce their evidence to have been perfectly inadmissible. On the other hand, when we consider, that nothing did occur in the whole evidence given under such circumstances, that attached the smallest share of criminality to Sir Edward’s conduct, we feel confident that we shall be justified in the conclusion that we have already drawn on this unfortunate subject. — All the witnesses, anxiously sought for and produced against Sir Edward, were Roman-Catholics and United-Irishmen; by their religion, in the first instance, and their oaths and engagements, in the second, in bigotted and confirmed enmity with all Protestants, and with every man not concerned in the rebellious projects; men, who, by their own confession, were not only implicated in the rebellion, but having been actually in arms against Government in the battle of Carlow, had, in consequence forfeited their lives to their country:— Men, who had sufficient reason to conclude, as we may venture to infer from what follows, that their only hope of security depended upon the conviction of Sir Edward, and that to have concealed the smallest incident that might bear against him, would have been ultimately fatal to themselves.

Lady Crosbie herself declares, and is ready to make oath, that the following circumstances were solemnly affirmed to her by the persons themselves, and that, could a magistrate have been found to administer it, they were willing, nay anxious, to confirm it upon oath. Edward and Patrick Walsh, brothers and day-labourers, occasionally employed by Sir Edward Crosbie, and John Taaffe, his postillion, were seized and committed to prison in Carlow. After having been a short time confined, Major Denis (the before-mentioned President of the Court-Martial) went to them, and told them, “If they would confess that Sir Edward was engaged in the rebellion, they should be immediately liberated.” Their answer was, ‘They would not condemn an innocent man.’ Major Denis said, “He would make them confess it;” upon which they were all taken to the barrack-yard, and most severely flogged. Between every thirty or fifty lashes (which of the two is not exactly recollected) they were asked, “Would they then confess against Sir Edward?” They answered, “They would die sooner than criminate an innocent man.” Major Denis then said, “Lay on the rascals fifty more.” These questions were often repeated, and the punishment as often renewed; still the unhappy sufferers continued uniformly steady, always declaring that Sir Edward had no knowledge of their proceedings, and was not in the least connected with them.

Finn, by the advice and at the desire of his master, as before-mentioned, had surrendered himself. During the above transaction, this Finn, a poor, sickly, timid man, was brought before Major Denis, in the barrack-yard, while his fellow-servant, John Taaffe, was tied to the triangle, and actually undergoing a severe flogging; a circumstance confirmed by the testimony of a gentleman of undoubted veracity, who was present and saw it. At the very time that this torture was inflicted before his eyes, Major Denis was sitting at a small table, with pen, ink, and paper, questioning John Finn, and noting down his answers. We before could not avoid remarking, that the question put to Finn, and his answers to them, were obviously the result of previous conversations, and we now see under what circumstances these conversations were held. The poor terrified wretch, fearing and expecting to suffer what his fellow-servant was then suffering, conscious also of his own guilt, it was not to be wondered at, if, to save himself, he had been induced to accuse his master of murder, or of any other crime that was required of him. It is therefore a most convincing proof of Sir Edward’s complete innocence, that nothing to criminate him could, even under such circumstances of terror, be drawn from Finn. The least, indeed, that could be expected, after having been thus sifted, at the fear of his life, for something that would operate against his master, was, that he would deliver that part of his evidence which was most favourable to him with a degree of caution and reserve; while his answers to questions prepared with a desire of convicting him, would be expressed in stronger and less guarded terms than were strictly justifiable, and without any such explanations as would remove the ground of suspicion; and such, from inspection, will appear to be the character of Finn’s evidence.

Patrick Walsh discovered more firmness. May we not from hence infer a reason why he was less minutely questioned on several points, by which it was attempted to draw from Finn, and other witnesses on the part of the prosecution, some evidence that would militate against the prisoner? Indeed we are authorised to declare, that the evidence really given by Patrick Walsh was more conclusive in Sir Edward’s favour than as it is expressed in the above Minutes, and went so far as to disprove that part of the evidence of Gayner and Burroughs, which related, as they supposed, to Sir Edward’s addressing the mob.

While such, then, is the evidence (and no better could be found) extorted and received from Roman-Catholics and United-Irishmen, themselves under the arm of the law for open engagement in rebellion: the evidence in his favour is given by Protestants unconcerned in any rebellious act, and is positive, unbiassed, and unimpeachable. It is moreover to be proved, that still stronger testimony would have been produced in Sir Edward’s behalf, could the witnesses have obtained admission into the Court.

George Lucas, accompanied by Robert Deane, steward to Lady Crosbie, voluntarily went to two magistrates of the county of Carlow, in order to make the following declaration upon oath, but both these magistrates refused to administer the oath; of which declaration the copy follows, viz.

 George Lucas, of Browne’s-hill, in said county, late shepherd to Sir Edward Crosbie, late of Browne’s-hill aforesaid, bart. deceased, came this day before me, one of his Majesty’s justices of the peace for the said county, and made oath on the holy Evangelists, that in the month of June last he regularly attended the gate of the barracks in the town of Carlow for three days according to orders, in order to give such evidence as would be demanded of him upon the trial of the said Sir Edward Crosbie; and saith, that during such time he was not called on but once, and that he was then refused admittance into the barrack-yard by the centinel on guard at the barrack-gate.

      (Signed)  George Lucas.”

“Sworn before me this day of June, 1798.”

The above affidavit is endorsed as follows:

“I do solemnly declare, that the within affidavit was drawn at the instance of the within named George Lucas, and exactly tallies with what he told me vivá voce. This paper was brought to me by Robert Deane, who informed me, that George Lucas had applied to two different magistrates, who both refused to take the affidavit.

                                       “Given under my hand, at Tullow,

                                                     the 7th day of July, 1799.

      (Signed) “ Robert Robinson.”

This, however, he has since been enabled to accomplish before a magistrate, as appears by the following affidavit, viz.

George Lucas, of Browne’s-hill, in the county of Carlow, farmer, late shepherd of Sir Edward William Crosbie, of View-Mount, in the said county, maketh oath, that from the nature of this the deponent’s employment, he was constantly about the house and demesne of the said Sir Edward William Crosbie, at View-Mount aforesaid, and from thence, and from his observations of the conduct of the said Sir Edward William Crosbie, both before and after the attack of the rebels on the town of Carlow, this deponent was enabled to give very material evidence in favour of the said Sir Edward Crosbie upon his trial, for which purpose this deponent was directed to attend at the place of trial by Lady Crosbie, the wife of the said Sir Edward William Crosbie. And this deponent saith, he has reason to believe, that if the said Sir Edward William Crosbie had left his house at View-Mount on the morning of the day of the attack of Carlow by the rebels, and had gone, or attempted to go, into the town of Carlow, for the purpose of giving any information, or at all, the family and property of the said Sir Edward William would have been destroyed by the rebels, who were in full force about the said town of Carlow.

This deponent saith, that he accordingly attended on the 2d and 4th days of June, at the barrack-gate in the town of Carlow, to give evidence upon the said trial; and saith, that on the 4th day of June this deponent was called upon to go into the Court, and give evidence for the said Sir Edward William, by Robert Kirwan, gaoler of Carlow, who was the person (as this deponent heard and believes) instructed by said Sir Edward William to call for his witnesses; and this deponent thereupon went forward, and attempted to go into the barrack-yard for the purpose of giving his evidence before the said Court upon the trial of the said Sir Edward William Crosbie, which was then going on. And this deponent saith, that upon his attempting to go forward for that purpose, the centinel then on guard presented his bayonet against this deponent, and refused him entrance, and said deponent should not go in, although he was informed, upon this deponent being so called, that he attended as a witness upon the said trial.[38] And this deponent saith, that Mary Hutchinson, and other material witnesses, who attended to give evidence upon the said trial in favour of the said Sir Edward William Crosbie, were refused admittance in the like manner. And this deponent saith, that he is and always was a Protestant of the Church of Ireland, as by law established; and saith, he never was concerned in the said rebellion, or in any act in favour thereof, and was always a true and faithful subject to the present established government. And this deponent saith, that this affidavit is made at the special instance and request of the said Lady Crosbie.

“ Sworn before me this 25th day of
December, 1800.
(Signed) “ John Carleton,”
“J. C.”“ George Lucas.”

 The above declaration and affidavit of George Lucas are fully sufficient to establish the fact, that the Court was not open to all, and that Major-General Sir Charles Asgill was mistaken, when, in his letter to Lady Crosbie, he asserted that it was; since it was not even open to witnesses in favour of the person upon trial.

Bridget Curren, one of the witnesses in behalf of the prisoner, has also declared to Lady Crosbie, that the difficulty that attended her getting into Court was so great, that she expected to have been run through the body by the soldiers, and should never have got in, but for a gentleman who dragged her through them.[39] The same witness likewise assured her, that she could have given a much stronger evidence in favour of Sir Edward, had she been allowed to speak, but that Major Denis desired her to hold her tongue, and to leave the Court, as she was not wanted.[40]

It may be seen also from a letter inserted in the Appendix,[41] that a neighbouring gentleman, of the most respectable character and profession, an early, most intimate, and confidential friend of Sir Edward Crosbie, thoroughly acquainted with his character and political principles, in vain endeavoured to get admission to him, except on the first day of his confinement; and in consequence of this prevention, together with the unexpected suddenness of the trial, this gentleman was precluded from giving that evidence in Sir Edward’s favour, which honour and the love of truth, what he owed to justice as well as to friendship, required at his hand. From the same letter it will likewise appear, from the testimony of another gentleman, that the reception he met with was very abusive, that he was turned out of the barracks with indignity; by which means other gentlemen were also deterred from fruitless and dangerous efforts, to visit Sir Edward in his confinement, and to proffer him their friendly counsel and assistance.

By such unwarrantable measures was Sir Edward deprived of the counsel of his friends, and of the benefit of evidence that must have operated to his advantage. It remains now that we refer the reader to the testimonies of some gentlemen of undoubted veracity, as certified by their own signatures in letters, of which copies are inserted in the Appendix;[42] whose asseverations, we are persuaded, will afford the reader a perfect insight into the purity and integrity of Sir Edward Crosbie’s general character, and the sentiments by which the whole conduct of his life were uniformly directed.

Should it however appear, that there is any thing in the evidence that has not been fully explained to the satisfaction of the reader, we must request his perusal of the letter of Sir Edward Crosbie himself, subjoined in the Appendix; which having committed to paper during the most awful moments of his terrestrial existence, furnishes such a clear and unequivocal explanation of the several occurrences preceding and immediately subsequent to the battle of Carlow, as must effectually remove every remaining shadow of doubt on this subject.[43]

On the supposition, then, that the talk we have undertaken has been accomplished, if it has been proved to the conviction of an impartial public, not only that Sir Edward William Crosbie was not legally convicted, but that his conduct was perfectly free from every just imputation of guilt, and uniformly guided by principles of the purest benevolence and the strictest honour and integrity; if iniquitous measures that were adopted to effect his ruin have in some instances been pointed out, and the futility, not to say the total insufficiency, of the evidence on which his unjust sentence was grounded, has been properly exposed, we shall be credited, we trust, when we assure our readers that we are possessed of many additional proofs of the means by which his destruction was planned and accomplished, which we are not at liberty to lay before the public, nor even to mention the authority from whence we have received the information; for, unhappily, terror still continues to operate on the best of minds.

In addition, therefore, to the circumstances brought forward in the preceding pages, we shall mention only the following particulars.

At the very time that Sir Edward is charged with aiding and abetting those concerned in the rebellion, his own property was the object of the rebels fury, who burnt his house near Hacketstown, and laid waste his lands; he himself, his wife, and family, being also marked down amongst those who were to have been murdered, had the rebels succeeded; at the same time it must be remarked, that in none of the various trials of the rebels that were published with the consent of government, (while a copy of Sir Edward Crosbie’s has so steadily been withheld) or that have been published without their concurrence; in none of the various discoveries and confessions made before the Secret Committee, and reported by them to Parliament; indeed, on no occasion whatsoever relating to the rebellion, has the name of Sir Edward Crosbie once been mentioned, or in the most distant manner alluded to Nor must it pass unnoticed, that Sir Edward was not included amongst those that were attainted in Parliament. It has also been already observed, that upon the unexpected apprehension of Sir Edward Crosbie at View-Mount, all his papers were seized and closely examined; yet not a single article was found to criminate him, or ever produced against him. A variety of injurious reports have, indeed, been most industriously circulated; but they have either been so incredible and incoherent in themselves, or, upon the strictest enquiry, have been found so perfectly devoid of foundation, that after the incontrovertible testimonies already adduced in support of Sir Edward’s innocence, it would be to waste the reader’s time to enter on a particular recital and confutation of them.[44]

By way of conclusion, therefore, we shall now sum up in one view the several particulars, which we consider to have been clearly substantiated in the preceding pages, relative to the harsh and injurious treatment Sir Edward Crosbie experienced with regard to his trial and the execution of the dreadful sentence consequent upon it, from which the impartial Reader will have seen —

That Sir Edward William Crosbie was brought to his trial, without being previously informed of the charges that were laid against him.

That many of his friends who might have been useful to him in preparing for his defence were not admitted to him.

That in consequence of this circumstance, and the unexpected precipitancy of his trial, contrary to the express engagement of the commanding officer Colonel Mahon, Sir Edward was destitute of proper counsel.

That the Court-Martial which tried him, was illegally constituted; no Judge-Advocate, or a competent deputy, being present at it.

That the witnesses produced and admitted against Sir Edward were of the most objectionable character; and that none but of this description could be found or did appear.

That the means that were used to extort evidence against the prisoner, were such as rendered the evidence itself perfectly inadmissible.

That unimpeachable witnesses in Sir Edward’s favour were not permitted to enter the Court.

That neither of the charges on which the prisoner was tried were proved against him; and that there appeared not the smallest grounds by which to justify the sentence that was pronounced.

That the execution of the sentence was precipitate, at an unusual hour, and attended with atrocious circumstances, not warranted by the sentence, and reflecting the greatest disgrace on the parties concerned in them; and finally,

That, in defiance of an Act of Parliament, a copy of the Proceedings has been withheld from the widow and family.


APPENDIX.

 No. 1.

Copy of a Letter from Sir Edward William Crosbie, Bart. to the Hon. Mr. Justice Downes, dated

“ Carlow Prison, June 5th, 1798.

“ My Dear Judge Downes,

In the confidence of former friendship, which, notwithstanding my present unhappy situation, and the death I am doomed to suffer, I still entertain the hope I have not forfeited; I shall take the liberty of addressing a few lines to you, (in justice to my own character, and in the expectation that you will extend your protection to my infant son, and your god-son, William) to explain to you the circumstances by which I am brought to a premature death; and I shall begin by making the following declaration, which I shall attest at my last moment.

“ I most solemnly declare, in the presence of ALMIGHTY GOD, that I am not, nor ever have been, a Member of the Society of United-Irishmen; that I knew not their plans, (excepting from the report of the Secret Committee of the House of Commons) never was present at, nor knew of, their meetings: knew not their captains, lieutenants, or other officers, or committee-men in this county, before Thursday May the 24th, 1798, and then only one committee-man, (Thomas Myler) by his own confession; or any other officer or committee-man in any other county, except by report, and then only after they had been committed to prison. Lord Edward Fitzgerald has long been known to be a leader: but I never had any communication with him by letter, nor ever saw him, except driving through the streets of Dublin in a phaeton or curricle, nor ever had the least communication with him by letter or otherwise.

Edward William Crosbie.”

“ But I confess, that, sometime in the beginning of this year, I was solicited for relief for the prisoners in this gaol, who were numerous, and represented in a very distressed situation: and many of whom, I thought, were taken up only on suspicion; and though I did not give money, I consented that six guineas should be given for me, and charged to my account for barley sold to Mr. William Mac Donald. And as I had seen money given for the relief of French prisoners at Liverpool in the year 1778, as well as I can recollect, I did not, I declare, think there was any moral turpitude in the act, or that it as a crime against the state.

“ I shall now mention another circumstance which has given me the utmost concern, and filled me with the deepest regret, and I shall mention it exactly as it happened.

“ Anxious to receive a letter from Mrs. Douglas[45] to inform me of her son Archy’s situation,[46] who, I understood, was in a very dangerous state of health; John Taaffe, my postillion, was ordered to go early to the post, and desired to return without delay with the letter, but did not come back till about one o’clock, and then said, “The mail had not arrived when he left Carlow.” He brought, however, the Dublin-Evening Post of Tuesday the 22d, which I sent for, and having read, I shaved and dressed myself, intending to go to the town, and wait the arrival of the mail. It was, I think then about three o’clock; and when I was going to mount my mare, John Finn, my butler, said “You must not go to Carlow, Sir.” These words and the manner struck me, and I returned into the house. —

Soon after I saw John Finn and Thomas Myler, my steward, in the pantry in conversation, and seemingly much animated. They both informed me, but principally Myler, that an insurrection had taken place in Dublin; that the prisons had been forced, Lord Edw. Fitzgerald and the other prisoners freed; that we should immediately have Peace; that the rebels had stopped the mail-coach, murdered the coachman and guard; proceeded from thence to Naas, forced the gaol there, and enlarged all the prisoners; from thence to Castle-Dermott; put to death most of the officers and soldiers, and every person that attempted the least opposition; that they had taken Baltinglass and Tullow, and were still on their march, intending to attack Carlow; that two hundred expresses had been sent from Dublin to different parts of the kingdom to excite a general insurrection. Shocked and confounded at this recital, I now began fully to comprehend the meaning of John Finn’s expression, “ You must not go to Carlow, Sir;” and saw they imagined I intended giving information to be guarded against them, and perceived that the only security to myself and family lay in not exciting their suspicion. Soon after I walked towards my potatoe-field, which was entirely deserted, and having observed it to Myler, who, with John Finn and all my labourers had now with triumph declared themselves United-Irishmen, he said, “

He knew early in the morning the express had arrived, that the people had been sent to all parts of the country to give notice, and that an attack would be made on Carlow that night.” I then endeavoured to dissuade him from this purpose, by remonstrating with him on the terrible slaughter that would ensue; when he with warmth made answer, “What would you have the people do, Sir? Would you have them lie down and die? Is it not better they should fall with arms in their hands, than perish in the ditches next winter for want of food and shelter?” I answered, that was certainly a better excuse for rising, than the one generally imputed to them, which was plunder.

“But, Sir,” said he, “there will be very little slaughter. Many of the military and yeomanry will join the people, and the town will be taken with little bloodshed.” I now found myself and family completely at the mercy of those around me, and determined to remain as quiet as possible. I then returned to dinner; and nearly as I can judge, about nine o’clock I walked a few yards from my drawing-room window, and on my return to the house met John Finn, who said, “Sir, I have heard you say you never saw a pike; come with me, and I will shew you one.” On which I followed him into the garden, and he conducted me into the garden-house, where, instead of a pike, which I solemnly declare I only expected to see I saw seven persons preparing pikes; all of whom have been since taken, except one person, who has fled, and one, who, I heard, was killed; but I was told, there were great numbers behind the wall towards Hughes’s ground. I now saw, that I was completely implicated: and I saw, that if the attack did not succeed, I might next day be sacrificed to their safety. I was then in a very dangerous situation.

I had, the Monday before, sent all my arms to Mr. Eustace the sheriff, and had only a poker, or such like instrument, to defend myself and family. The people I saw in a state little short of madness, and the least suspicion of the want of good-will towards them might have been the destruction of myself and family; and therefore I acknowledge I did not attempt to make the least opposition, but let them do just as they pleased. In this particular I may have judged and acted wrong, and it may be expected that I should have made an effort to restrain them; but I am now certain, that the least attempt would have been immediate destruction to myself and all my family. After staying in the garden-house a very few minutes, I returned to the parlour, and saw neither man nor pike after, but John Finn, who came up with a jug of water and a tumbler about eleven o’clock. I was then playing at cards with my wife; and went to bed about twelve.

A little after two, I as waked by my wife, who said, there was a knocking at the gate; I lay awake some time, when the same knocking was heard, which she made me take notice of. I then got out of bed, and saw firing towards Carlow, and told her it was attacked. In some time after, I got out of bed, and saw houses on fire. This Thursday, I solemnly declare, was the first time I knew my servants and labourers were United-Men, though I suspected them all. The next day I was in the utmost agony of mind from the reflection, that I had not used my utmost powers to prevent the people I saw in my garden-house from going out; though I am now certain, from what appeared in evidence on my trial yesterday, that immediate death would have been the consequence. But I endeavoured to make the only atonement then in my power, by calling together my servants and labourers, and making use of these words, “You see you have joined a society, that is unable to protect you. Take my advice. Renounce this society, and give up your pikes to your priest. Go to Mr. Browne; tell him you have done so, and take the oaths of allegiance.” The promised me they would: but Myler, after some time, answered, ‘ that he would on Sunday see the priest, and consult with him.’ John Finn, fearing he was suspected, fled the next day after the attack; but after I was in confinement, thinking his evidence of material service,

I sent for him, and he surrendered himself to Mr. Browne, and appeared against me, and afterwards for me; and, I fear, will suffer; which wounds me much, as his life might have been spared, if I had not sent for him. I omitted to call on Mr. Mac Donald to prove the purpose for which I consented to his giving six guineas for me. Indeed, from want of recollection at the moment, I did not think of him though he was in the gaol: and I have since heard, that not having disproved this is the circumstance that has made most against me in the opinion of the Court. I am pretty certain I shall not live twenty-four hours, and write this for your information, and to rescue my character from injury. I am sure you will believe me at my last moments, when I solemnly declare, I fall a sacrifice to the machinations of my own servants, and, as they imagined, to their own security. Adieu, my dear Judge Downes! Continue your friendship to my helpless boy, which, if I could be certain of, I should die in peace! But I cannot give up the hope that you will use your utmost efforts to have my pension and property restored to my family, who, however improperly or imprudently I may have acted in an unguarded and dangerous moment, are innocent of my acts.

“ Believe me, my dear Judge Downes, with the greatest esteem and respect,

“ Your affectionate

“ And truly sincere friend,

(Signed) “ Edward Wm. Crosbie.”

 No. 2.

Copy of a Letter from George Powell, Esq. Counsellor At Law, to John Lewis Boissier, Esq. dated

Dublin, July 6, 1798.

“ Sir,

“I Lament very much that it is not in my power to send you the documents you require relative to the trial of my dear unfortunate friend, Sir Edward Crosbie; it never has been published; nor have I been able to procure a copy of the Proceedings, or even of the charges on which he was tried. Lord Glandore has written to the officer commanding in the district of Carlow to get the Minutes of the Court-Martial transmitted to him, but they have not yet been sent; when they arrive, I shall, if possible, send you a copy. — In the mean time, I can assure you in the most solemn manner, that the reports you mention to have been circulated at Bath, are totally void of foundation in truth. No French uniform, nor any other belonging to any rebellious or disaffected society, was, or could be, found in his house. His papers were secured, and searched by the officers by whom he was taken, at the instant; an event which happened so unexpectedly, that no concealment, if wished for, could have been effected; yet not one paper was found which could bring on his character or conduct the slightest reflection.

Judge, then, if such conclusive evidence as must have arisen from the discovery of a commission of general, or governor of a province, had been discovered, how impossible it would have been to conceal it; and how unnecessary to have recourse to the testimony of a wretched terrified servant, whose only chance of pardon was the conviction of his master, and who, being an avowed United-Irishman, must, in giving his evidence, have been guilty of perjury, one of the fundamental oaths of that society being, not to impeach a brother.

No, Sir; be assured it is a fact, and one that I have the happiness to find is universally believed here, that he was as ignorant of the intentions of the rebels until after three o’clock on the 24th of May, (on the night of which day the attack was made at Carlow) as any other man in the community; and that from the moment the infernal plot was discovered to him by his butler and steward, he was kept under such restraint by them, that even an attempt to discover would have cost him his life, and been fatal to Lady Crosbie and the children. The trial was over before I got to Carlow, although I traveled all night.

When I arrived there, I found it impossible to expect a moment’s delay of execution; and had only the melancholy consolation of seeing him, and having an hour’s conversation, before the fatal event took place. In that time he read me the letter he had written to Judge Downes, of which you have had a copy; and afterwards he sent me that letter, and a copy of it in his own hand-writing, by the Rev. Dr. Hubbart, who was with him at his last moments. So intent were they on dispatch, that at nine o’clock at night, on the arrival of the approbation of Sir Charles Asgill of the sentence of the Court-Martial, he was led out to execution. His firmness never deserted him for a moment. — On the parade he read his declaration in the most manly and impressive manner. Oh! Sir, to have seen him die, would have been sufficient to have convinced any person that he had lived a man of honour. Lest the sight of me might have discomposed him, I concealed myself from his view; but, I am now persuaded, nothing could have shaken his firmness.

“ I have the honour to be, Sir,

“ Your very faithful

“ And obedient servant,

(Signed)  “ George Powell.”

  No. 3.

Copy of a Letter from Mr. Justice Downes to the same, dated

Dublin, July 7, 1798.

“ Sir,

“I have waited since I had the honour of your letter, (now four or five day) in hopes of being able to furnish you with some authentic information as to what passed at the trial of our unfortunate friend. I have not as yet been able to procure any statement that can be depended upon, though, from the moment of the trial, I have been very anxious to obtain an accurate account of it; and I do not think it right to trouble you with such reports as have circulated here, as I know nothing of their authenticity, and they are far from being favourable. Indeed the melancholy situation of the country has so much heated the minds of most people, so many of them have cruelly suffered in their property, and by the distress or death of friends and relations, that a ready ear is lent to reports which tend to criminate. As to Sir Edward, I cannot say I have any information, save his own letter (of which you have a copy) and the unauthenticated rumours. I have, however, received hopes, that I may speedily be furnished with an authentic copy of the evidence and proceedings of the Court-Martial, which, as soon as I receive, I shall take care to transmit to you. But, as I may be disappointed in that expectation, I cannot longer postpone acknowledging the receipt of your letter, and assuring you, that I am, Sir,

“ Your very faithful

“ And obedient servant,

(Signed) “ William Downes.”

 No. 4.

Extract of a Letter from the Rev. Robert Robinson to Mrs. Boissier, dated

“ Tullow, Jan. 30, 1799.

“Your letter found me in a large and gay company, and the revulsion it occasioned had such an effect on me, as I shall not attempt to describe, but which no friend of Sir Edward Crosbie need be ashamed to avow; and that I was such, is my boast and my pride, notwithstanding the rash and fatal sentence which deprived him of life. No difference of opinion could ever loosen the bonds of amity between him and me, or cool our affection; and as to party spirit, although I possess myself as loyal a subject as any in his Majesty’s dominions, and sincerely abhor the rebellion which has of late distracted this unhappy country, yet I should be sorry to consider myself as a partizan. I knew Sir Edward’s political sentiments well, and do solemnly declare, that he never, to my recollection, uttered a word of treasonable tendency; and with me he was ever unreserved. Would to God, he had been less so to others! I will tell you the two grand points, on which he was most warm. One was, that he thought this kingdom governed by Great-Britain rather as a colony than as a federal state. The other was, that his noble heart spurned at the hauteur and oppression of the great and rich towards the poor and lowly. On these topics he always expressed himself with ardour, and often in the preference of those who felt themselves galled; and this attached to him the character of disaffected and republican. But I will give you a strong proof that he was not so: The morning that he fought young Burton, (of which no doubt you heard) I was saying to him that I much feared the duel[47] would be imputed to politics, as I knew he had the name of being a republican. His reply was, “If such be the character they give me, it is most undeserved; and I call on you as my friend, if I fall, to clear my memory from so ungrounded a charge, as I am a steady friend to the constitution of King, Lords, and Commons, with a parliamentary reform, striking off the rotten borough.” These sentiments uttered, on such an occasion, by a man whom, in a long course of most intimate acquaintance.

I never knew guilty of the minutest falsehood, must be admitted as the genuine effusions of his heart; and that he did so express himself to me, I declare on the word of a Christian clergyman. Was he then a republican? No. His own declaration a little before he suffered, and which I read in his own hand-writing, clears him from the imputation of being a member of any treasonable society. Another circumstance I must mention, that the evening of the day after the fatal event, I did, at the request of poor Lady Crosbie, examine his papers; and I call God to witness, that I could not discover in them the slightest trace of treason or disaffection. — His own words to me, when I visited him in his confinement, proved unhappily true. “I much fear, Bob, that I shall fall a victim to the madness of the times.” He then related to me every thing that passed on the fatal 24th of May, and though I had much to lament in the recital, yet what little sagacity God has endowed me with, did not enable me to perceive any thing of traitorous intent.

I saw in it much of surprise, much of agonizing situation, and too much of ill-deserved confidence. The only point that could possibly be made against him, arose from the goodness of his heart and his too great tenderness for the viper that stung him to death, and even that in a legal trial could not affect his life. But let us consider who were his judges; — they were men who had been actively engaged in the battle of Carlow, and whose minds were in a high degree of irritation from thence, and who, therefore, could not judge dispassionately. In this circumstance we are to look for his conviction; and to that are also to be attributed the peculiar hardships with which he was treated. When I went a second time to the gaol, desiring to see him, I was stopped, and told I could not be admitted without an order from Colonel Mahon. On my way to the barrack to obtain it, I was met by Dr. Fitzgerald, who asked me whither I was going? I told him, and for what purpose. He told me not to attempt it, for that a few minutes before Mr. Henry Rudkin, a gentleman of very good fortune, a resident in Carlow, and a magistrate also, had gone on a message from Sir Edward to the Colonel, and the reception he met with was very abusive, and he was turned out of the barrack with indignity. Mr. Rudkin, whom I saw in a few minutes after, confirmed this information. Finding, then, that my efforts would be fruitless, I desisted. Again; my poor friend told me that when he got notice of his trial he would send me word, that I might be present to assist him on that melancholy occasion. But so short, I understand was the notice he got, that he had not time to send me any message; nor did I know it was going on, till it was nearly concluded.”

Extract from the same Letter:

“I went over to View-Mount, and saw the two Lucas’s. The son said that he did not attempt to get entrance at the barracks, as he was attending Lady Crosbie: but the father declared that during the trial he was called, and demanded admittance, but was refused it by the centinel at the barrack-gate. Pursuant to my direction, he got an affidavit drawn up to that effect, and went to Sir Charles Burton to swear it, who very angrily told him, that he would not administer an oath on such an affidavit, nor would any magistrate in this county. Deane (Lady Crosbie’s steward) then took him to Mr. Browne, who refused taking his affidavit till he should consult Sir Charles. So you see how matters stand here. This account I had from Deane, who was with me on Sunday last.

(Signed) “ Robert Robinson.”

No. 5.

Copy of Sir E. Crosbie’s letter to Mr. Eustace, (then sheriff of the county of Carlow.)

“ My Dear Sir,

“Though we live in very extraordinary times, nothing but Divinity can deprive us of the power, or the right, of private judgment, however prudence or fear may induce us to suspend the expression of its sentiment.

“ My opinion of the Insurrection-Act is such as takes from me the merit of voluntary compliance. It is the penalty, therefore, to which I must pay attention. And as, by the eighth clause of said act, two witnesses before a magistrate are necessary to conviction for the non-registry of arms, and none have appeared against me, I shall rely on your candour and honour, and the candour and honour of such gentlemen as may peruse this letter, not to take advantage of this voluntary confession. But if it should happen otherwise, I am ready to submit to the penalty, which is a forfeiture of ten pounds, or two months imprisonment; though it is acknowledged to be a constitutional right to have arms, which by this act, without registry, is made malum prohibitum.

The opinion I entertain of this Insurrection-Act would not allow me to attend the Grand Jury at the last Assizes; and while that attendance is optional, and not mandatory, I shall continue to absent myself as long as it remains in the statue-book. But as I have never been a party-man, and feel myself totally out of the power or malice of any individual, I shall exercise the right of private judgment; and tho’ I may lament measures, and suffer some inconvenience from my neutrality, I think it better to do so, than to subject myself to be reproached by my own heart, or by my children. I now send you three guns, and two cases of pistols; two of the guns old and useless. The gun in the box, and one of the cases of pistols, Lady Crosbie has a particular regard for, as they were the property of her late husband, Mr. Dodd; and I shall consider it a favour, if you will be so good as to take care of them.

“ By this act I leave myself totally disarmed.

“ Believe me, dear Sir,

“ With great regard, very truly your’s,

“ Edward Wm. Crosbie.”

“ View-Mount, May 20, 1798.”

 No. 6.

 Extract of a Letter from Lady Crosbie to Mrs. Boissier,[48] dated

“ Dublin, Sept. 30, 1800.

“The only act I have done since I got the Minutes of the Court-Martial, was to send an express for one of the witnesses, Biddy Curran, and read to her the evidence she had given; with a request, that she would endeavour to the utmost of her power to recollect whether they were the words she uttered. She assured me, “they were not exactly the same, that he (Sir Edward) had declared, ‘he would go to the farthest part of the world to punish a rebel, and that if her brothers were United-Irishmen, he would hang them if he could.’ She likewise added, “She could have given a much stronger evidence in his favour had she been allowed to speak; but Major Denis desired her to hold her tongue, that she was not wanted, and to leave the Court. The difficulty that attended her getting in was so great, that she expected to have been run through the body by the soldiers, and should never have got in, but for a gentleman who dragged her through them.”

All I then asked was, what further evidence she could have given, had she been permitted? She said, that on the eventful night she saw Sir Edward standing in his shirt, calling over the banisters, “Are all my men in the house? Will no one answer me? Are my men-servants at home?” that John Finn answered from below, that they were all at home. She desired me to read Pat. Walsh’s evidence, which I did — she said it was somewhat different from what she had heard, and what he told her he had sworn, “That only a few of them had gone to the garden-house at View-Mount, but that the whole had assembled in Sir Charles Burton’s grounds, and had marched from thence to Carlow; that Sir Edward had not been with them in the field, and had never encouraged them.” Biddy Curran also says, “that on the 24th of May, about three o’clock, she and the other maid-servants had seen their master in violent contention with Finn and Myler, swearing they would be hung if they did as they intended, and that he would give them up.

They then put him to defiance, and” as she says, “threw off the mask.” I asked, why she did not tell me this circumstance, when it would have been of service to me to know it? She replied, “the army would shoot her, and that she was afraid to speak or tell me any thing.” Thus you see the system of terror prevailed, and in part continues to this day. She likewise told me, that when her evidence was closed, Sir Edward stood up and said, “Gentlemen, I suppose I am now acquitted. You have nothing further to say to me.” ‘Not yet, Sir Edward,’ said Major Denis, ‘I have another question to ask: Did not you give money to maintain the United-Irishmen in gaol last assizes?’ He answered, ‘No.” ‘Are you sure you did not?’ He replied, “No.” ‘You do not recollect yourself.’ He then considered, and said, “he believed he might desire ‘Myler to give them something, as they sent a petition round the country that they were starving before their trial.” Upon which they (Major Denis and the Court, or part thereof) shouted for joy.

CONCLUSION.

After the foregoing detail of circumstances relative to the lamentable termination of Sir Edward Crosbie’s life, it would be an insult to the understanding of the intelligent read, did we not leave him to draw his own conclusion. Indeed we have no other wish on this unfortunate subject, but that every reader, uninfluenced by prejudice or passion, should, in the cool hour of reason, judge freely and impartially for himself; with this consideration on his mind, that the unmerited fate of Sir Edward Crosbie might have been his own, had he been unhappily circumstanced as Sir Edward appears to have been. For ourselves, as the friends and relations of Sir Edward, who from a perfect knowledge of his principles and character, joined to our own most cordial attachment to the constitution of our country, may be allowed to feel strongly the imputations which the execution of an unjust sentence may be instrumental in casting on the memory of the deceased; we have to say, that the task we have undertaken was considered to be that task of indispensable duty, which honour, affection, and justice, imperiously called on us to perform.

In performing it, we trust that our feelings on the occasion, which we do not wish to disguise, have not betrayed us into the most distant reflection on the government of our country; which we certainly do not think responsible for the abuses of that unlimited discretionary power, which the unhappy circumstances of the times rendered necessary to be adopted. Our object has simply been to rescue the memory of the deceased from that disgrace which is deservedly attached to the conduct of a rebel. With this view we have faithfully detailed the Proceedings of the Trial which terminated in the fatal sentence which deprived Sir Edward of life. Could we have procured the original Proceedings of the Court-Martial in question, for the attainment of which no effort on our part has been wanting, we have abundant reason to think, that the innocence of Sir Edward would have been still more fully demonstrated.

Our utmost wish has been to meet this subject fairly; disclaiming every concealment, and challenging every investigation of which it is capable. Were we conscious that any charge of disaffection or disloyalty was to be substantiated against Sir Edward Crosbie, our conduct ought, in prudence, to be the very opposite to what it is; for the agitation of a bad cause (it must occur to every intelligent reader) can tend only to its more complete and general exposition.

As relations to the deceased, it must be expected that we should feel strongly. Private feelings, however, have not on this occasion been suffered to swallow up the duty we owe to our country. If Sir Edward Crosbie was the man he ought to have been, to justify the sentence pronounced against him — though as relations we should lament his fate, yet, as good subjects, we just say, he deserved it. But if, on the contrary, as we maintain to have been the case, Sir Edward fell a sacrifice to ill-founded prejudices, during an ungovernable paroxysm of party rage; whilst every allowance may be made for the precipitate and inconsiderate judgment of the parties concerned, under the circumstances of their situation; still it is our consolation to think, that we live under a government which cannot wish to aggravate the misfortunes of Sir Edward’s family, by becoming instrumental in entailing disgrace on his memory. Our appeal in this case, and it is a most solemn one, shall be to Honour, to Justice, and to Humanity: and if these virtues, the characteristics of the great and good, have not deserted our land, we rest assured, that the unhappy cause we have been pleading, will not fail to experience that reception from those, to whose consideration it is most respectfully addressed, to which Honour, Justice and Humanity must deem it to be entitled.



[1]     The passage above related to, “that he could not hear of a single instance of disaffection discovered in a Protestant in Carlow and its vicinity,” is a presumptive evidence that he had been minute in his enquiries.

[2]     It should be observed, that Sir Richard Musgrave has acknowledged to one of Sir Edward Crosbie’s family, that his only authority for what he has advanced, was the suspicious and interested assertions of some of the officers of the Court-Martial which condemned Sir Edward.

[3]     See Mr. Robinson’s Letter, Appendix, No. 4.

[4]     In an anonymous pamphlet, of which a third edition has been lately advertised, Sir Edward Crosbie is classed with a set of men who, really guilty, suffered justly. It is entitled “Biographical Anecdotes of the Founders of the late Irish Rebellion.” We have only to observe of this publication, that almost every particular it exhibits respecting Sir Edward Crosbie is totally false — his birth and the date of his patent being the only points correctly stated. Sir Edward never was a member of the Irish Parliament; nor was he in age, abilities, fortune, character, or conduct, what this hasty and ignorant biographer represents him.

[5]     Lord Glandore, Counsellor Powell, and several others of the friends and relations of the late Sir Edward Crosbie, made similar applications to different quarters, but with no better success. See Appendix, Nos. 2 and 3.

[6]     By the 9th article of the Act for punishing Mutiny and Desertion, &c. it is enacted, that, “The party tried by any General Court-Martial in the kingdom of Great-Britain or Ireland, or in Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney, Sark, or Man, or the Islands thereto belonging, shall be entitled to a copy of the sentence and proceedings of such Court-Martial, upon demand thereof made by himself, or by any other person or persons on his behalf, (he or they paying reasonably for the same) at any time not sooner than three months after such sentence.”

      By the 10th article of the said Act it is enacted, that “Every Judge-Advocate, or person officiating as such, at any General Court-Martial, do and is hereby required to transmit, with as much expedition as the opportunity of time and distance of place can admit, the original proceedings and sentence of such Court-Martial to the Judge-Advocate General in London, which said original proceedings and sentence shall be carefully kept and preserved in the office of such Judge-Advocate General, to the end that the persons entitled thereto, may be enabled, upon application to the said office, to obtain copies thereof, according to the true intent and meaning of this Act.”

[7]     Much has been said relative to the pension Sir Edward Crosbie received from Government. It may be necessary to explain, that it originated in a pension of 200l. per annum, granted upon addresses of the House of Commons, in the reign of King Charles the Second, (as may be seen in the Journals of the Irish House of Commons) in consideration of the great losses (even at that time, to the amount of many thousand pounds per annum) the family had sustained by their firm adherence to the Royal cause; which pension was doubled to his father Sir Paul Crosbie, about six months before his death; one hundred of it was then deducted, and the remaining three hundred was divided among four of his children, of whom the late unfortunate Sir Edward William Crosbie, as eldest, had 150l. per annum, for his share. This circumstance report has magnified and misrepresented.

[8]     It was imagined that the direct and positive assertion of Sir Edward Crosbie’s innocence in the above Memorial, and that the grounds on which the Court-Martial had condemned him were totally insufficient; would have been the means, as it afforded a fit opportunity, of calling forth a vindication of the Court, for a sentence of death on a man, thus unequivocally pronounced innocent, (and for which it had been severely arraigned by many individuals not in the least connected with the family) could any such vindication have been found in the Proceedings.

[9]     The insults offered to her by the military became now so alarming, that these, together with a midnight visit from Colonel Mahon of the 9th dragoons, and a party of dragoons, on a frivolous pretence, after what had befallen her lamented husband, excited in her no unreasonable apprehensions for her own security; and she was obliged at length literally to fly for refuge to England.

[10]    See Lady Crosbie’s Memorial. The Deputy Judge-Advocate’s answer to Counsellor Powell’s application for a copy of the Proceedings was, “that they had never been lodged in the office.”

[11]    Gayner, this witness, upon being asked, “Which is Sir Edward Crosbie, he is now in Court?” made answer as above, ‘that he saw no such description of person in Court; though Sir Edward, at that time, was not only in Court, but at his side; as we are assured by a Gentleman that was present at the trial. The person here alluded to must have been Myler, Sir Edward’s steward; who, it was afterwards discovered, was a determined and active United Irishman, and one of their committee-men, that for his own wicked and traitorous purposes, often personated his master, whom he greatly resembled in height and figure and it was, no doubt, to favour this deception, that he dressed so like his master. Sir Edward usually wore the uniform of the Carlow Hunt, a dark blue coat, black velvet cape, large silver buttons, with “Carlow Hunt” on them. Myler always appeared in a coat exactly resembling this uniform, except that Carlow Hunt was not engraved on the buttons. His motive for this is now apparent; but, at the time, gave no suspicion to any of the family. He absconded after the battle of Carlow, and it was then discovered that he had defrauded his master of 300l. and upwards. Sir Edward’s servants (as was the case in almost every family in Ireland) were Roman-Catholics, and United Irishmen; which last circumstance he was unacquainted with till the afternoon on the 24th of May, when his servants for the first time, with an air of defiance, openly declared themselves.

[12]    Sir Edward Crosbie’s house fronts Browne’s-Hill, and not Carlow, as this witness sets forth; so both of the person of Sir Edward, and of the situation of the place, he appears equally ignorant.

[13]    It is evident, from the questions put to John Finn by the Court, that they were suggested by previous conversations. After his confinement Sir Edward sent for this man, thinking that his evidence might be useful in his defence. (In a note to Lady Crosbie, Sir Edward desires that she would send immediately for Finn, who, he imagines, is at his father’s or uncle’s; and whose presence he considers as necessary for his defence; and desires, that all the maid-servants may likewise appear.) A step he hardly would have taken, if he had thought that his conduct was in any way criminal, and that this man could purchase his own security, by betraying him. Finn immediately returned to View-Mount, and before all the servants openly declared his master’s innocence, and total ignorance of the designs of the rebels. From thence he went the same day, and surrendered himself. How he afterwards came to appear as evidence against his master, may be explained in the sequel.

[14] It was not to see some pikes settling, (as here expressed) but simply to see a pike, that Sir Edward went into the garden, as afterwards acknowledged by the same Finn. About a week before the attack of Carlow, Lady Crosbie, while at dinner, attended by the witness John Finn, told Sir Edward that she had been that morning walking with Lady Charlotte Browne, and that they had met a man of horseback with a large pike before him, which excited their curiosity. Lady Charlotte knew the man, and asked him “Neil, what have you got there?” ‘Ma’am, I have got some pikes, which were left at a priest’s house last night, and I am taking them, by Mr. Browne’s order, to Carlow.’ Lady Crosbie expressed her wish to see one. On which he got off his horse, and unpacked about half a dozen. Sir Edward, on hearing this, asked Lade Crosbie, “what sort of weapon it was?” observing, ‘you have seen more than I, my dear; for I never saw a pike in my life.’ Hence Finn took occasion a few days after, to induce his master to go into the garden-house, by offering to shew him one pike. Had Finn had the least idea that his master was an United Irishman, or in the most distant manner concerned with them, could he have imagined, that he did not know what a pike was, or that he could have been till that day, till almost the moment of action; without ever having seen one?

[15]    See the purport of this conversation in Sir Edward’s letter to Judge Downes, Appendix, No. 1. See also Appendix, No. 6.

[16]    How could he be ignorant of it? Finn and Myler had now declared themselves; and every man in Ireland knew what pikes were intended for.

[17]    How could he think it necessary, now that he had dared to declare himself, and knew that his master was unarmed, as he himself a few days before only had carried all his master’s arms to the sheriff’s? But after all, this does not even prove that his master did see the pistol.

[18]    He positively did not know it. Lady Crosbie awakened him about two o’clock, saying, she had head a knocking at the gate, on which he got up, and going to the window heard firing from the town, saw it in flames, and told Lady Crosbie that Carlow was attacked: she instantly exclaimed, “Great God! Perhaps our men are in it!” Upon which Sir Edward opened his door, and called to them several times without receiving any answer. At length, “Will nobody answer me?” said he, and a female servant replied, “Are the men below?” said Sir Edward; John Finn then answered, “Yes, Sir, we are all here.”

[19]    Mr. Mac Mahon, attorney, who on the preceding day attended as counsel to Sir Edward, was prevented from attending him any farther. Accordingly, Sir Edward was without any counsel during the remainder of his trial, and to assist him in his defence.

[20]    For some particulars relating to this evidence, see *.

[21]    It is now very well known that Myler encouraged his confederates, by impressing them with a notion that Sir Edward favoured their plans, though he very well knew the contrary. In that part of the country the rebels had no leader of any note. It was, therefore, highly necessary for the furtherance of their schemes, to animate the party with the idea, that so respectable a person as Sir Edward Crosbie was engaged in the same cause, and prepared to head them. (This is by no means the only instance, during the rebellion, of the name of a respectable gentleman being used for these villainous purposes.) With this expectation it is probable the rebels were induced to flock towards Sir Edward’s on the evening of the 24th. Myler was easily mistaken for his master by those who did not personally know him. The report was quickly propagated that Sir Edward appeared at their head. On the ground of this, and other equally-unfounded rumours, his destruction was unhappily effected, as appears from the hole of what relates to the trial.

[22]    Sir Edward Crosbie did not belong to the Whig-Club; and it is a remarkable circumstance, in a country where every man belonged to some club or society, that he was not a member of any club whatever, unless we except Kildare-street Club, of which he was an old member.

[23]    It appears evident from this circumstance, how completely Sir Edward Crosbie was in the power of his servants, as he could not even command the mare; which the witness allows he took from him, and converted to his own use.

[24]    Lady Crosbie’s waiting maid.

[25]    This circumstance and many others, after the battle of Carlow, came to the knowledge of Sir Edward by the report of his servants.

[26]    For the particulars respecting the difficulty this witness met with in getting into Court, see Appendix, No. 6.

[27]    See Appendix, No. 1.

[28]    The original declaration was afterwards delivered by the Sheriff to Lady Crosbie.

[29]    We have heard of some wild fabricated evidence given on the trial of Sir Edward Crosbie, of Lord Edward Fitzgerald having been a day and a night at View-Mount. The Minutes do not authorize us to assert, that Lord Edward was even mentioned: but this solemn declaration confirms us in the opinion that he was. He certainly never was at View-Mount.

[30]    See appendix, No. 2.

[31]    See Appendix, No. 1

[32]    See Appendix, No. 1

[33]    See Appendix, No. 2

[34]    For these and many other particulars on this subject, see “An Essay on Courts-Martial, by S. P. Adye;” and (which is far more satisfactory) “Tytler’s Essay on Military Law, and the Practice of Court’s Martial.”

[35]    See Note 14.

[36]    Lady Crosbie’s own waiting maid.

[37]    See Appendix, Nos. 1, and 6. This was not a very proper question to be put to the prisoner, had there been any criminality in the action itself; since, according to the spirit of our laws, and the practice of the regular courts of justice, no question ought to be asked of the prisoner, by which he may be drawn into a confession of his own guilt. But, perhaps, Major Denis might think it the more necessary to extort this confession, from considering how very imperfectly the fact (such as it is) was proved by the evidence. — The only authority the witness (Rogers) had for asserting it, was, that Myler told him so; and that, as one Bern said, Myler told him also. Both Rogers and Bern were Roman Catholics, both United-Irishmen, and deeply concerned in the rebellion. Rogers saved himself by turning informer; and Bern by the interest of a gentleman in the neighbourhood. Now, not to speak of the witness, might not Myler have had precisely the same motives for propagating a falsehood on this subject, as in the very same breath for making other assertions, that were most decidedly false? [See Rogers’s evidence and the note.] and yet, must we not think it very extraordinary, that the circumstance which made most against Sir Edward in the opinion of the Court, as Sir Edward afterwards understood, [See Appendix, No. 1] was, that in the situation of surprise and ignorance, in which he was precipitately hurried to his trial, without the aid of counsel, he had not sufficient recollection to summon witnesses to explain every fact, which admitted of an unfavourable construction, from persons who seemed bent on his destruction?

[38]    This fact was communicated to Colonel Mahon immediately after the trial, by Lady Crosbie herself; who waited upon him as Commanding Officer, and told him, that whatever was the determination of the Court, she must solemnly protest against its being put into execution. Upon which he said, “Pray, Madam, what grounds have you for such delay?” Her answer was, upon strong grounds indeed; for that the principal witnesses in Sir Edward’s favour were prevented from coming into Court to give such strong evidence in his favour, as must, if received, have powerfully operated in her husband’s vindication. — “Good God! Madam, are you certain of what you say?” “I am, Sir, and can prove it upon the oaths of those prevented.” Ignorance, therefore, of this important fact, formed no excuse for the execution of the dreadful sentence.

[39]    See Appendix, No. 6

[40]    See Appendix, No. 6

[41]    See Appendix, No. 4

[42]    See in particular Nos. 2 and 4, of the Appendix.

[43]    See Appendix, No. 1

[44]    Amongst the numerous reports of this nature we cannot forbear to mention the following: — That Sir Edward Crosbie, during the interval between his trial and execution, wrote a letter to Sir Charles Asgill, in which he acknowledged the justice of the sentence, and only requested that the mode of execution might be varied. We have been assured that some persons of character have been shewn the letter, which was said to have been written by Sir Edward. The family could not for a moment give credit to the report, but wished to have it in their power to confute it. Accordingly the Rev. Mr. Douglas, nephew to Sir Edward Crosbie, and Counsellor Powell, waited on Sir Charles Asgill, who assured them that he had never received a letter of any kind from Sir Edward Crosbie. This fable we have endeavoured to trace out, and have very good grounds for asserting, that it originated with one of the members of the Court-Martial. How desperate the cause must be, which has recourse to such falsehoods, the reader will judge!

[45]    Sister to Sir Edward. Her only son had, two days before, suffered the amputation of a limb.

[46]    See Appendix, No. 5.

[47]    The duel here alluded to took place about two months before the insurrection at Carlow. It as entirely unprovoked on the part of Sir Edward Crosbie; and would by him have been avoided, could it have been done consistently with that character of honour and courage, which every gentleman is anxious to preserve, and which, his severest enemies must acknowledge, peculiarly belonged to him. It had its sole origin in the unsuspected insanity of his antagonist, which immediately afterwards became too apparent to be doubted and terminated fatally

[48]    This extract is inserted here as it was written immediately after the conversation it records, and Lady Crosbie is confidently persuaded, related it with perfect accuracy.



Footnote from Turtle
Bunbury:

I am in the process of writing a history of Viewmount House outside Carlow. The property belonged to the Browne-Clayton family for many years and was home to the ill-fated Sir Edward Crosbie during the 1798 Rising. A draft version of the story can be found at Viewmount House  I would be most grateful if anyone had anything further to add to it.


 [ Page 4 ]  Page 5  [ Back ]


Please report any links or images which do not open to mjbrennan30@gmail.com

The information on this web site is for personal use only, and under no circumstances is it to be used/copied for commercial purposes by Professional Researchers.
Neither can it be used for the purpose of gain from any person and/or organisation.
© 2001 Ireland Genealogy Projects, IGP TM  By Pre-emptive Copyright - All rights reserved

Back to the top