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