Shivers Family Legends - © Shivers Family Legends Website  ©
A Family History of Religious Migration
Shivers Family Legends - ©

Historic Meath.

From Max Chevers 12/10/2004 in email.
"The Diocese of Meath" relating to Dr. Augustine Chevers and lesser pieces on
Rev.Laurence Chevers and Rev. Christopher Chevers, which I will attach.
Also I have a document relating to the estate Edward Cheevers the outlawed
Viscount, who accompanied James 11 into exile, when the family fought to keep
part of the estates.
Thom Cheevers of Brantford, Ontario did a very interesting paper on The
Mystery of the Chevers Baronetcy and I will send this for inclusion
on the site as long as Thom's son is agreeable - it would be a pity
not to publicise his work, as he did a great amount of research before
the benefit of the internet.


			By  The Rev. A Cogan Published 1867


1.	Dr. Augustine Chevers

1.	AUGUSTINE CHEVERS was born at Killyan, County Galway, about 
the year 1686. He was descended from the ancient family of Chevre* of
Normandy, a branch of which accompanied William the Conqueror into England,
and a descendant of which invaded Ireland with Strongbow.
In course of time this family extended its ramifications through various
parts of the country, but the elder or senior branch, settled at Ballyhaly,
County Wexford. Sir Christopher Chevers of Ballyhaly married Anne Plunkett
of Macetown, + an heiress, and thus the Macetown property passed into the
family. At the confiscations of Cromwell Sir John Chevers was dispossessed
of the estate, and was transplanted to Connaught. He married, as his second
wife, Jane daughter of Edward Sutton, Esq., and had issue by her (who died
in 1688) Edward, created Viscount Mount Leinster and Baron of Bannow, who
married a sister of Sarsfield.s, Earl of Lucan; second, Andrew, whose male
issue became extinct; third, John, who married Ellis, daughter to Edward
Geoghegan, of Castletown, Westmeath (who died in 1739), whose mother was a
daughter of Lord Trimlestown.s.

*See Sir Bernard Burke.s Landed Gentry.
+ For the inscription on the stone at Macetown, commemorating Christopher
Chevers      and Anne Plunket, see Diocese of Meath, vol.1, p. 277.

  By the marriage of John Chevers with Miss Geoghegan there was issue-
first, Michael of Killyan, Edward of Leckafin, Christopher, Mathias, who
became a Lieutenant-Colonel in the Spanish Service, and a Knight of San
Fernando; Augustine, the Bishop; and Margaret, who was married to Sir
Richard Burke of Glinsk.  Of the early life of the future Bishop of Meath we
regret that we know but little. It is said that he was brought to France,
when a boy, by his uncle, Lord Mount-Leinster,* and it is certain, that
after some years, he joined the Augustinian Order, + and became conspicuous
amongst his contemporaries for ecclesiastical virtues. No doubt his
ancestral respectability, his many excellent qualities, and the devotion of
his family to the fallen fortunes of the Stuarts, contributed largely to
recommend him for promotion. Accordingly he was consecrated Bishop of
Ardagh, ¬ and, after the death of Dr. MacEgan, was translated by Pope
Benedict X1V, to the See of Meath.$

I  have been told this by several old respectable families throughout the
diocese, who stated that they frequently heard their grandfathers quote Dr.
Chevers as their authority. 
   + The late Very Rev. Austin Killeen, Prior of the Augustinian Convent
   of Galway, wrote to me, a few years ago, that Dr. Chevers had made a 
   bequest to the Convent of Galway, and that the Community are bound to 
   celebrate a certain number of anniversary Masses for the repose of his 
   soul, to the present day.
   ? Dr. Chevers was appointed to Ardagh on the 17th of July, 1751, and
   was translated to Meath on 7th of August, 1756.$ Dr. MacEgan had, as 
   we have seen, the administration of the diocese of Clonmacnoise,or the 
   Seven Churches, after his translation to Meath. In his old days, when 
   unable through infirmity to perform visitations in that district, he 
   requested Dr. Chevers, then in  Ardagh, to supply his deficiencies, and 
   this induced Dr. Chevers to petition the Holy See for the union of 
   Clonmacnoise and Ardagh.

He assigned as his principal reasons, the vast extent of Meath as more than
enough to tax the energies of one bishop, the poverty of Ardagh, its
proximity to Clonmacnoise, and the fact that he had the labour of it. Dr.
Chevers was translated to Meath, and then found to his mortification, that
his reasons induced the Holy See to incorporate Clonmacnoise with Ardagh. He
petitioned, it is said, for the administration of Clonmacnoise, on the
ground of being able to attend to it, and received for answer a copy of his
reasons why Clonmacnoise should be united with Ardagh.  The above may not be
circumstantially accurate, for I have seen no documentary evidence, but it
is substantially so, as many of our old pastors heard the facts from the
lips of the late Dr. Plunket.
After his arrival in the diocese, the first ecclesiastical matter of
importance which occurred, and in which he took part, was the assembly of
seven bishops in the Castle of Trimlestown,* County Meath, for the purpose
of drawing up a joint Pastoral+ to their flocks refuting the odious
doctrines imputed to the Catholic Church by the interested bigots of the
day, and explaining how their spiritual obligations were perfectly
reconcileable with their temporal allegiance. The prelates who met on this
occasion, were the Archbishop of Armagh and the Bishops of Meath, Clogher, 
Kildare, Derry, Kilmore and Raphoe.

	The Irish Church, almost exhausted with prolonged persecution, was
at this time sadly circumstanced for the want of missionaries, and, only for
the friars, whose fidelity in the hour of trial should never be forgotten,
most of the parishes would have been without pastors.  To apply a remedy, as
far as he could, to this state of things, Dr. Chevers collected £600
throughout the diocese, and with this sum founded burses in the college of
Douay. In July, 1765, he sent a learned priest, of Rathmoloyn, with letters
to the Bishop of Arras, dated e loco refugii nostri, and gave him full
authority to bring matters to a successful issue. Rules and regulations to
meet all contingencies, were drawn up, agreed upon, and were duly signed by
Dr. John Bonneguize, Lord Bishop of Arras; Rev. Luke McKiernan (an Ardagh
priest), President of the College of Douay; and Rev. James O.Flynn,
representative of Dr. Chevers.+ Previous to his return, Rev. James O.Flynn$
placed on a secure footing all the Meath Burses which, at various times, had
been founded in the various colleges of France, and Flanders; and thus our
young students received their literary and religious training, until the
French Revolution, in its insane fury, confiscated and swept away every
vestige of religious endowments.

* There was a tradition some years ago in the neighbourhood, that on this
occasion of the meeting of the Bishops on Trimlestown Castle, they were clad
in frieze, like farmers, in order to conceal their ecclesiastical dignity.
The bigots of that day pretended to apprehend a French invasion as the
result of any gathering of the clergy or people.
+ A copy of this Pastoral is in my possession, and shall be published (D.V)
in Appendix to vol.iii.
+ In his letter to the Bishop of Arras, Dr. Chevers concludes thus:-
.Documenta igitur nostra dedimus delecto filio et vicario nostro Reverendo
Domino Jacobo Flynn, Parocho de Rathmolyon et Rathcore, cui vires nostras
commissimus, ut de his apud Celsitudinem Vestram agat, eaque tractet ac
sinet, quae ad majorem Dei gloriam, ad animarum salutem, et ad Ecclesiae
nostrae Midensis utilitatem in perpetuum tendant..  The Letters and Rules
shall be incorporated in the Appendix to vol.iii.
$ See Pastors of Rathmolyon and Father Flynn.s entry in the Registry.

2."For several years after Dr.Chevers' translation to Meath, he had no
regular residence. We have seen in his letter to the Bishop of Arras, 
dated 1765,that he wrote "from his hiding place" and for several years, 
after stealing through the diocese , performing his visitations, he was 
accustomed to retire, during the winter months to his friends in Connaught.
In 1766, or early in 1767, his niece, Margaret Chevers, daughter of Edward 
of Leckafin, got married to James O'Neill,son of Con O.Neill  of Rathcarron, 
and as they lived at Crackenstown, near Ratoath, County Meath, Dr. Chevers 
usually resided with them. Thus on the 1st. of May, 1667, Michael Chevers of 
Killyan writes to his nephew William (brother to Mrs. O'Neill), who was captain 
in an Irish regiment in the service of Spain.
"They (Mr. and Mrs. O'Neill) have fitted up a handsome room and chapel+
for the Doctor, which, he tells me in his last letter will be his chief
place of residence; and the more so, as he was always uneasy for a convenient
place in his diocese to live in, which he said was his chief obligation.
I hope we will now and then see him, when his affairs permit." Dr. Chevers writes 
to his nephew, Captain Chevers, dated Glinsk, the residence of his sister, 
Lady Burke, July the13th. 1769: .Your sister, Mrs. O.Neill, has been with her 
aunt Burke since the beginning of June. She and her husband are now in Killyan, 
and next week both of them will begin their journey for Crackenstown, within 
eleven miles of Dublin. It is a handsome place, and I am convinced, as the 
young man is full of industry, he will give her a decent independence.

*Family correspondence of Dr. Chevers, at present in the possession of John
Lentaigne, Esq., who in the kindest manner placed all the papers at my
disposal, of which we print a few letters. +This house is at present occupied 
by James Kelly Esq., and there is a room there still called the Bishop's Chapel.

 I see by your letter that General O.Reilly and my friend Captain Nugent are
going to the West Indies- the latter, without doubt, if the Almighty
preserves him his life, will return to Europe with a considerable fortune.
He is a gentleman for whom I have a particular regard, and you.ll be sure to
give him my most affectionate dear child, my advice to you
is to live abroad, and never see your native country. This advice I gave my
dear brother Matthew. He kept close to it, and I hope you will do the same.
The excessive troubles I met with in the County of Meath these twelve months
past have ruined my constitution to such a degree, that I wish I was with
Matt in Fuentarabia, or in any other part of Spain..

He writes to his brother, Matthew, who was a Knight of the order of St.
Jago, and a colonel in the Spanish service, then stationed in the fortress
of Fuentaravia. The letter was written in July, 1769, and dated Killogues:
.The excessive troubles I met with in Meath these twelve months past have
ruined my constitution; those fatigues made me retire to our friends in
Connaught, where my indifferent state of health delayed me longer than I
expected. All I can say is, that I could wish myself to be with you in
Fuentarabia, and I do believe, were I able to undertake the journey in my
old age, I would embark for Spain; but at present my bad state of health
hinders me from quitting this unfortunate country. Enough on this
disagreeable subject. . . .  The Great and Almighty God prepare us all for
the dreadful approaching hour. All here at Killyan and Glinsk are well. . . 
. I am ordered by the physicians not to apply myself to anything. My
disorder is owing to a disturbed mind. I send you this short letter from the
bottom of my heart, and receive it as if it were the longest letter I ever
wrote. I am hindered from reading or writing, but not from assuring my
dearest Matt that I am
.Entirely your
              .Ever loving Brother till death,

He writes again from Killogues to his nephew, Captain Chevers, on the 17th
of March, 1772:

.It gives me more pleasure than you can imagine to find you are better, and
that I shall soon have the pleasure of seeing you in this unfortunate
country, where I hope you will settle your own affairs to your entire
satisfaction, as I am
not able to transact them in consequence of my illness. However, thank God,
I am better than I expected, but cannot appear in a Court, in opposition to
your tenants, who will not pay your rent until you appear in person. 
Wherefore, I do again desire you will begin your journey for Ireland as soon
as your health will permit; but, by all means, I desire you not to expose
your life, which is more precious than the value of your property in
Loughrea. . . . .  There is now a good deal due to yourself, and for the
above reasons, I am sure you will not be paid, till you appear in this
country, and more so as they know a person of my character cannot safely
appear against them in a Court of Justice . . . . . I
do, therefore, again desire you will come as soon as possible; and,
immediately after your arrival, you will by all means come to see me here,
or wherever I may be lodged..

He writes to a friend about this time, but there is no date in the letter.
He seems to have entertained a poor opinion of the generality of the Irish
Gentry of his day:

.Unavoidable business brought me to the neighbourhood of Drogheda and Navan,
where I was delayed longer than I expected. . . . .  In my last I gave you
to understand that the people of this unfortunate country who are rich have
no good nature in them; they despise their nearest relations when poor, and
will show a seeming friendship to the greatest stranger, especially if they
find he has some thousands in Letorche.s Bank, or a large sum at six per
cent, with girts and sirsingles in the hands of men who will punctually pay.
Moreover, they look upon themselves to be extremely wise because they have
money, and if a man had the wisdom of Solomon without cash, they think him
to be a fool and incapable of giving advice. . . . .  Your letter, together
with the printed paper, I received eight days ago in the chapel of . .
Ratoath, where I was obliged to confirm  numbers of people.
.  .  .   .  .  .  Irish gentlemen speak a vast deal of polite education,
and principles of honour, and I think they are greater strangers to both
than those of any other nation in Europe. In short I shan.t disturb my mind
about them, will leave them to themselves, and pray that the great God may
direct them. . . .  .  .   .  .  .  .  I see in this country, very often,
few are inclined to have their disputes in regards to property to a
reference, &c.

.I am your most affectionate kinsman and humble servant,

On the 13th of March, 1773, he thus writes from Ballikelchriest, to his
Captain William Chevers:

.Your long-wished-for letter, dated 13th of February, has reached this post.
It gives me particular pleasure to see by the account you give of your
health (though not perfectly recovered) that you are better, and I do hope
that your native air will be of greater service than Montpellier, &c. Your
sister Elly, you are aware, is happily married to Mr. John O.Reilly,* son to
my old friend, Philip O.Reilly, for whom you know I have a particular
regard.  Elly and her husband are as happy in the matrimonial state as any 
in their situation can wish. He does all in this power to please and indulge 
her, and, at the same time, she leaves no stone unturned to make him happy. 
She is very careful, full of economy, and, at the same time, when an occasion 
offers, decently generous. Since I have come here, both John and she have 
taken all imaginable care of me, for which I am most thankful. . . . .  My 
dear William, as long as you live in this deceitful world, we must have either 
sickness or troubles. They are all a small punishment for one sin alone.  
The Almighty grant us patience to bear them with Christian resignation, and 
grace to practice all the supernatural virtues in this miserable life that 
are necessary to conduct us to eternal happiness. . . . .  In one of your 
former letters you assured me you would sail for Cork, which is without doubt 
the safest harbour, and where you can be supplied with everything necessary 
to make a proper appearance, as well and as cheap as you could in Dublin. 

*Dr. Chevers. niece Ellie, was married to John O.Reilly, of Annville,
Ballikilchriest, and, in 1798, the Orange yeomanry, after the battle of
Granard, plundered this house, and trampled on the vestments which they
found in the house, and which had belonged to the bishop. By this means
these barbarians wished to exhibit their hatred of Popery.

Your brother O.Reilly and sister Elly covet nothing more than to have the
pleasure of seeing you. You may easily believe I sincerely wish to see you
before my death; I do perceive a thickness in my tongue and lips, as also a
lowness in my voice. The most I can ride is seven or eight miles a day, and
not even that without fatigue. With regard to the chaplain whom your worthy
Colonel and Major Nugent (to whom you will present my most affectionate
compliments), together with the corps, are desirous to have, had I known a
secular or regular, master of the languages, or possessed of some of the
other conditions required, I would with pleasure send him without delay. You
will let the Colonel and Major Nugent know from me that I am most thankful
for the confidence they are pleased to repose in me; but as I cannot name a
person to my entire satisfaction, I cannot with honour accept of the
commission. . . . .  You will find many in Cork that will direct you the
shortest way to Mullingar, and from thence you can be with me in less than
three hours. Let me know when you will be there, and John will send horses
for you.

	.Believe me to be, my dear William, always
				   .Your affectionate Uncle,
					         .AUGUSTINE CHEVERS..

 Although the following letter has no reference to Dr. Chevers, yet, as it
concerns the Irish regiments then in the service of Spain, it will have some
interest for the reader. The letter was written by a brother officer, and
directed from Valencia, dated September 28th, 1773, to Captain William
Chevers, then on leave of absence in Ireland:

.I would have written to you much sooner, in answer to yours from Lisbon,
but waited to have the destiny of the regiment determined, this city having
represented against our marching this season, to no purpose, as we this day
got orders to part directly from Pampelona, which garrison our Colonel
preferred to St. Sebastian, having had his choice of either. Ireland.s
regiments are divided- one batallion in Totova and the other in Terragona;
and Ultonias.,who were lately sent to the lines of Gibraltar, are now ordered 
to Cerita. Navarr.s come to this place, and Coxonas. go to Tanona. Brabanti.s 
have been sadly disappointed in not going to Madrid, and are sent to Alicant. 
O.Connor Phaly is on his road to Tanona, and the Major of the Spanish Guards 
named to succeed him. The Governor of Madrid acted as Commissariat-General of 
New Castile since Count Arandas. departure; and this post brings an account of
the King.s naming Count O.Reilly intexino, as the former was taken
desperately ill. Now for regimental news. Bourke and White have got the
Adjutancies, and, in consequence of the Lieutenant.s representations ,
informations were taken, by the inspector.s orders, to find out the
promoters; upon which Kelly, Rutledge, Foley, Bourke and Fitzgerald were
sent to the Castles ( on the frontiers of Portugal, fifty leagues distant)
as the most culpable. The Lieutenancy of Grenadiers, vacant by Tommy
Bourke.s advancement, was given to Dr. Lintote, to the prejudice of honest
Billy Kelly. . . . .  There are still two vacant, which I believe will be
given to (obliterated) and Concannon, so that you may soon expect to hear
that Cadets O.Neill and Bray are made Ensigns; and Lord Treagh, who is
expecting a government, will soon leave another vacancy. The Major (who is
taking the waters of Annadillo) desired me to tell you to be with your
colours without fail the 1st of April, as no officer can be absent at that
time under pain of being suspended. Therefore finish your affairs, as your
promotion partly depends on your punctuality. I can.t express my desire to
have a letter from you.
.Indulge me then, dear Bill, and command yours eternally,
						 .DENIS KELLY.
.P.S. - As we have no account of your arrival in Ireland, we are all vastly
uneasy. Coleman and Concannon expect with impatience to hear from their
friends, and propose writing to you one of these days. . . . .  My love to
my dear sisters, and compliments to all friends, particularly the families
of Killyan, Tycooly, Cloonagh, and Ballysancke..

Captain Chevers was now about to leave the Spanish Service, and as it was
contrary to English law to enlist in the service of any foreign power, he
was obliged, on his return, to sue for pardon. On the 12th of June, 1774,
Colonel William Vaughan, writes from Pampelona to Captain Chevers, then in

.I am heartily glad your native country agrees so well with you, and the
favourable prospect you have of settling yourself there to your
satisfaction; calling for your Dimmission plainly shows it. When I
acquainted the officers of it, nothing could concern them more than to think
of your quitting them. You did ill to admit to have been in the Spanish
service, as they could never prove it against you. . . .  However, you do
well to solicit your pardon.  I forwarded to the Minister your memorial and
character (always so good). I am obliged to give him an account of the
officer.s conduct every four months. His answer was, that he was sorry the
King lost so good an officer, and that as it is your own request, you could
not be refused, consequently would send it in a few posts. I can assure you
there is not one in the regiment but is sorry for it, except Howard. I can.t
believe he is, as he expects your post. . . . . 
According to your request, I wrote your situation to our Minister, earnestly
praying that he would take it to consideration, and recommend you to the
Court of England. In the letter I had from him about your Dimmission, he
wrote me he would not alone write to the Ambassador, but also to the Prime
Minister, in the King.s name, and make it a point you would get your pardon;
so make yourself quite easy about it. I have no doubt his letter will be
there before you receive this; but as great people are apt to forget,
through hurry of business, I wrote to Count O.Reilly to put him in mind of
it. I am certain he will, as he always professed a friendship for you.  As
we lose you, the least we can do is to endeavour to secure you. . . . .  I
sincerely wish you success in all your undertakings, and be persuaded that
none of your numerous friends on this side will be more rejoiced to hear of
it than,
	       .Dear Chevers,
			 .Your assured friend on all occasions,
				 	    .WILLIAM VAUGHAN..

Lord Suffolk to Lord Gormanston:

.Lord Suffolk presents compliments to Lord Gormanston, and has the
satisfaction to inform him that the King has been pleased to grant his most
gracious free pardon to Mr William Chevers, for the penalties incurred by
having been in the Spanish army. Lord Gormanston will be pleased to give
notice of this to Mr. Chevers. friends, that they may apply at the proper
offices for his dispatch.
    .St. James.s, Thursday, 16th June, 1774..

Lord Gormanston to the Duchess of Wharton:*

.Lord Gormanston.s best respects to the Duchess of Wharton, sends her the
enclosed note he this instant received from Lord Suffolk, and wishes her
Grace joy for Mr. Chevers. speedy success, and will wait on him to-morrow
to congratulate him thereon.  The enclosed her Grace will please keep for
Lord Gormanston.
    .Burlington-street, Thursday night, 11 o.clock..

3.Dr. Chevers became parish priest of Kilberry, after the death of the Rev.
William Clarke, in 1758. He resided principally at his house at Randalstown,
where he was accommodated by the family of Everard, during the closing years
of his life. Feeling himself declining in health, and unable to discharge
his episcopal duties, he petitioned for a coadjutor, in the person of Rev.
Eugene Geoghegan, parish priest of Tubber, and had the gratification of
witnessing the consummation of his wishes, in the consecration of his
friend.  The end at length came: on the 18th of August, 1778, Dr. Chevers
died at Randalstown, in the ninety- second year of his age, and was buried,
after due honour and celebration, on the south side of the old churchyard of
Donaghpatrick. + In the Freeman.s Journal of August, 1778, the following
entry was inserted of his death:- .Dr. Augustine Cheevers, Titular Bishop of
Meath, died in his ninety-second year, 1778..  No tomb has been erected to
his memory; no headstone or slab marks his resting place; but in the
Registry of Deaths of the parish of Kilberry there is an entry of his death
and place of repose:

*She was related to Mr. James O.Neill, who was brother-in-law to Captain
+ An old man pointed out the bishop.s grave to the writer, a few years ago,
and stated that his father, who had been with Dr. Chevers. funeral, often
showed him the green turf under which he rests.
1778.    18 Augusti-Piissime ex hoc soeculo migravit Illustrissimus et 
Reverendissimus Dominus Augustinus Chevers, Episcopus.  7 Octobris- ut
supra-item-Fra. Michael Walsh.  Quorum Reliquiae conditoe sunt in ecclesia
de Donaghpatrick.  Requiescant in pace. Amen..

Erratum: Letorches Bank: Most likely LaTouches
Legal Terms:
The conveyance of John Chevers to Nicholas Netterville was subject to an
indefinite ondition of Redemption which means that JC or his successors
could reclaim the land at any time on payment of the outstanding mortgage. 
Other legal terms translated:
Cautionary claim  lodged with land registrar requiring  him to notify of any
proposed dealings  on  the land in question
Capias Writ of arrest
Ejectment Action to take possession of a freehold
Enure      to take effect
Decretal    order of the court

The Diocese of Meath
By The Rev. A. Cogan

Onknewtown and Dowth


Rev. Patrick Dunan succeeded.  This patriarchal and saintly confessor
officiated in the 
worst days of the last century and suffered accordingly. For celebrating
Mass and refusing to take the oath of abjuration, he was arrested, thrown
into prison, and kept in close and lingering confinement for several years.
Despairing of shaking his fortitude, his enemies next shipped him off to the
Continent, under the penalty of being hanged, drawn and quartered if he
returned. Nothing daunted, the faithful priest returned and officiated as
pastor in the union of Grangegeith. In his advanced years he lost the use of
his sight, and had for administrator his distinguished nephew, Rev.
Christopher Chevers. Tradition still vividly hands down how the young priest
used to lead the venerable and infirm old pastor by the hand, on Sunday
mornings, to the mud-wall thatched chapel, and after Mass conduct him back
to his humble abode. Father Dunan died, full of years and merits, on the
20th of May, 1761, and was buried in the church-yard of Ardmulchan. Over his
remains a tomb has been placed, with a primitive and expressive inscription.
See vol. 1, p. 343.    
The Rev, Christopher Chevers succeeded, and was translated elsewhere.
The Rev.Patrick McDermott succeeded, and was also in a short time ranslated. 
Rev. John Kelly succeeded, and was translated to Blacklyon.
Rev. Patrick Smith succeeded, and was translated to Ardbraccan.      
Rev. Laurence Chevers succeeded. This pastor was born in the neighbourhood
of Navan, and officiated for several years as curate under his cousin, Rev.
Christopher Chevers. He died on the 3rd. of July, 1818, deeply regretted by
his flock, and was    buried in the church-yard of Grange. On his headstone
is the following:
Beneath this monument lie the remains of the Rev.Laurence Chevers
Parish Priest of Grange-Geeth and Mount-Newtown 33 years. 
He departed this life July 3rd. 1818, in the 73rd year of his age..

Carolanstown, or Kilbeg. This union comprises the ancient porochial divisions 
of Staholmock,Robertstown, Emlagh and Kilbeg; all of which are situated in the 
Barony of Lower Kells. Robertstown....Pastors...Very Rev. Christopher Chevers 
afterwards succeeded . This eminent priest was born in the neighbourhood of Kilbeg, 
about the close of the 17th century; he was descended by his father from the 
illustrious house of Macetown, many members of which were dispersed after the 
confiscations of Cromwell; his mother was sister to the Rev. Patrick Dunan, the 
venerated pastor of Monknewtown and Dowth.  After receiving ordination he was sent, 
as was then the custom, to complete his studies on the Continent, and, under
the disguise of a merchant.s clerk, succeeded in baffling the watchful
emissaries employed by Government for pursuing and arresting Irish
ecclesiastics. He tells us in his poem, * which he wrote soon after his
arrival, of his narrow escape from Vavasour, who strongly suspected the
object of his mission, and of many perils with which his voyage was
accompanied.  How long he remained in France, or what year he returned,
cannot now be ascertained, but at all events he officiated for a time as
curate in the union of Grangegeith, and discharged parochial duty in
Ardbraccan, Carnaross, Monknewtown, and finally in Kilbeg. He assisted his
uncle, The Rev. Patrick Dunan, as administrator in Dowth; and tradition
still preserves how, when the venerable old Priest was infirm and blind, the
nephew would lead him by the hand on a Sunday morning to the little mud-wall
thatched village chapel, and after celebration, lead him back to his humble
home. Father Chevers was translated to Kilbeg about 1767, became
Vicar-General of the diocese, and took a prominent part in all the
ecclesiastical movements of the day. The name by which he was familiarly
known amongst the people was .Thar Chevers mor. to distinguish him from the
Rev. Laurence Chevers, his cousin, who for several years officiated as
under him, and who subsequently became pastor of Gragegeith. Father
Christopher was a very polished scholar, and his society was much courted by
the Protestant gentry of his day. He is said to have been an eminent
preacher, and a man of deep and varied information. He composed poems and
songs on a variety of subjects, in the Irish, English, Latin and French
languages. He died at an advanced age, on the 28th of December, 1785, and
was buried in the churchyard of Staholmock, where neither tombstone nor
headstone marks his resting place. 

Chapter IX.
The Old Bridge - The Bridge-street - Gormond's Gate - The New-Row -
No record has hitherto been discovered to determine the period at which the
first bridge was erected across the Liffey at Dublin. The native Irish
chroniclers state that King Melaghlin or Malachy, in the year 1001, built a
causeway at Ath Cliath or Dublin till it reached half the river (Tochar Atha
Cliath do denamh La Maolsechlainn, go ruige leth na h-abhunn); and the
ancient historical narrative of the wars of the Irish with the Northmen, in
describing the last combat which took place on the battle-field of Clontarf
A. D. 1014, says: "Then the men of Connacht and the foreigners of Ath Cliath
(Dublin) commenced to slaughter each other, and but few escaped on either
side. This was the last general fight on Cluain Tarbh, and of the two
battalions of the foreigners of Ath Cliath who had come thither, there
survived but nine men, who were pursued by the household troops of Tadhg
O'Kelly (King of Hy Many), and slain at the head of the bridge of Ath Cliath
that is the Bridge of Dubhghall. These details are narrated as follows in
the original work:
"Iomthusa Connacht: Do gabadar fein acas goill Atha Cliath ar chomhmargad a
cheile, acus ba suaill nar bo comtuitim diobh uile leth as leth, acus is in 
imbualadh deidenach boi ar Chluain tarbh. Acas ni deachaidh don dara
cath do cuatar goill Atha cliath ann ar aen rian acht nonbar amhain, acus ro
leansat lucht tighe Taidhg i Ceallaigh iad, gur marbhsat a-ccinn droichit
Atha cliath iad .i. droichet Dubhghaill." [I have transcribed this as
accurately as I can from the old Irish characters. KF]
A pedigree in the "Book of Leinster" mentions that Maelmordha Mac Murchadha
was slain after the same battle by Gilla Barrini at the "Bridge of
Dubhghall;" and the native annals record that in 1112 the great northern
clan of Cineal Eoghain ravaged Fingal as far as the "Bridge of Dubhghall."
Of the personage from whom the Bridge of Dublin acquired the title of
Droicheat Dubhghaill, no account is now extant. The name Dubh- Gall
signifies literally a black or dark-complexioned foreigner; the appellation
of Gall or stranger having been indiscriminately used by old Irish writers
to designate the inhabitants of distant countries. The Tuatha de Danann
tribes who settled in Ireland at a very remote period have been always
described as a dark-complexioned people, highly skilled in arts and
mechanism; we find, however, that the name of Dubhghall existed among the
northern Irish clans in the 10th century, and Dubhghall, son of Amhlaeibh,
one of the " Tanists," or heirs apparent, of the Northmen, is recorded to
have fallen at the battle of Clontarf, A. D. 1014.
From being the medium of communication with the Scandinavian colonists on
the northern side of the Liffey, the bridge was occasionally styled, in
early Anglo-Irish documents, "Pons Ostmannorum," or the Bridge of the
Ostmans, whence its erection was conjecturally ascribed to the Danes, styled
Dubh-ghaill by Irish chroniclers. This supposition, however, was mainly
supported by a misinterpretation of the phrase Droiciteat Dubhghaill,
meaning literally the bridge of a certain person named Dubhghal, Dugald, or
Doyle - whereas, had it been designed to convey the idea of the bridge of
the Danes, the correct construction of the phrase would have been Droicheat
na-nDubhghall. We have, moreover, no notice of any bridge having been built
in Ireland by the Scandinavians, while various bridges are stated to have
been erected by the native Irish at an early era. Fiachna, King of Uladh, or
Ulster, in the eighth century, is recorded to have been styled "Black
Fiachna, the Bridge-builder," from the edifices erected by him: "as lais,"
writes Mac Firbis, "do ronadh droicheatt na feirsi agus droicheatt Mona
Daimh et alios, gona Fiachna dubh droithcheach a ainm sidhen." The name of
Drogheda, Latinized into Vadi-pontum, or Pontana, was originally formed from
the Gaelic Droicheat atha, the Bridge of the Ford. King Cormac's Sanasan or
Glossary, compiled in the ninth century, tells us that the word Droichet,
then and still used by the native Irish to designate a bridge, was derived
either from the verb Doroichet, to pass, or from the word Drochshet, a
strait or bad passage: "Droichet .i. doroichet cach taris ón ur co araile
do'n uisce no na fede: drochshet din i set direch, ar is droch cach n-direc
.i. ni talla nemdirghe do ar nab tusledach. No droch-shet ar a olcás." 
The old Brehon Laws required that the Ollamh Saor or chief builders should
be proficient in the art of erecting bridges, the payment for which was
minutely regulated, and the art displayed in the construction of various
ancient stone edifices in Ireland confirms the accounts transmitted to us of
the skill of the early Irish architects, one of the most eminent of whom was
Goban, whose father Tuirbhi possessed the locality a few miles from Dublin,
now styled Turvey, and formerly called Traigh Tuirthi, or the strand of
Tuirbhi, "the affectionate keen father of Goban." Goban, who flourished in
the seventh century, is still commemorated in the traditions of the
peasantry as "Goban Saer," or Goban the artificer, thus confirming the
ancient prediction that his fame as a builder both in wood and stone would
exist in Erin to the end of time; "famossisimus," says the old writer, "in
omni arte lignorum et lapidum erat in Hibernia nomine Gobbanus, cujus artis
fama usque in finem saeculi erit in ea."
One of the public city officers, cursed by Lorcan O'Tuathal, Archbishop in
1162, is recorded to have died from the effects of a fall upon the Bridge of
Dublin; various grants of land in the vicinity of which are still extant.
King John, in 1200, exempted the citizens from the impost of pontage, a tax
levied for building and repairing bridges; and in a despatch dated 23rd
August, 1214, the same monarch informed the Archbishop, Henri de Loundres,
that he had given the citizens permission to erect a new bridge across the
Liffey, and to take down the former one, should they so desire - "quod,"
says the record, "fieri faciant unu~ ponte~ uta aquao de Avenlith ubi poci
vioint expedire ad utilitateo civitatis n're, et qo aliu ponte ult aquam
illam pri' factu diriu faciat, si hoc expediens fuerit i dempnitati eor,
et ideo vob' mandam' qo hoe ita fieri permittatis." [The Latin is littered
with symbols I have never come across before. I have done my best to
transcribe them. KF] The existence of the ancient bridge here referred to is
further confirmed by the following statement:
"In sinking for a foundation for the south abutment of Whitworth Bridge, in
1816, it was found that the foundation of the Old Bridge, which occupied the
site, stood upon the ruins of another still more ancient. The stones of
which it was formed rather resembled Portland stone than any of the sorts
found in Ireland. These were regularly laid, connected by iron cramps, on a
platform of oak timber, supported by small piles, shod with iron, which was
completely oxidated, and being incrusted with sandy matter, the lower ends
of the piles were as hard as stone, as if entirely petrified. It is
supposed," adds our authority, "that the Old Bridge was first constructed as
early as the reign of King John, but these ruins indicate that a bridge of a
better and more artificial construction had, at a more remote period,
preoccupied the situation."
On the 3rd of July, 1215, King John formally granted his charter to the
citizens of Dublin, authorising them to erect a bridge across the Liffey, in
such a situation as they deemed most expedient: "Quod faciant unum pontem
ultra aquam de Avenlith, ubi p[?]vioint si t [?] civitati nre pdce mag'
The old Anglo-Irish tradition relative to Little John's visit to Ireland is
narrated as follows by a local chronicler in the 16th century: "There
standeth in Ostmantowne Greene an hillocke, named Little John his shot. The
occasion proceeded of this. In the yeare one thousand one hundred foure
score and nine, there ranged three robbers and outlaws in England, among
which Robert Hood and Little John were cheefeteins, of all theeves
doubtlesse the most courteous. Robert Hood being betraied at a nunrie in
Scotland called Bricklies, the remnant of the crue was scattered, and everie
man forced to shift for himselfe. Whereupon Little John was faine to flee
the realme by sailing into Ireland, where he sojourned for a few daies at
Dublin. The citizens being done to understand the wandering outcast to be an
excellent archer, requested him hartilie to trie how far he could shoot at
random: who yeelding to their behest, stood on the Bridge of Dublin, and
shot to that mole hill, leaving behind him a monument, rather by his
posteritie to be wondered, than possiblie by anie man living to be
counter-scored. But as the repaire of so notorious a champion to anie
countrie would soone be published, so his abode could not be long concealed:
and therefore to eschew the danger of lawes, he fled into Scotland, where he
died at a towne or village called Moravie."
A deed of 1307 mentions shops with certain other buildings upon the Bridge;
and Edward II., in 1310, licensed Geoffroi de Mortagne, citizen of Dublin,
to erect a well fortified and embattled tower on the southern end of the
bridge, and a second tower at the corner of the wall from the aforesaid
bridge towards the west, permission being granted to De Mortagne to build
his own houses between those erections.
The citizens having complained that De Mortagne had encroached upon the city
wall, Edward II., in 1313, directed John Wogan, then justiciary, with the
Chief Justice of the King's Bench, to examine those buildings, and restore
the wall to its former condition, by the removal of all obstructions.
Letters Patent were granted on the 24th of October, 1348, to John De
Graunstete to found and construct a chapel on the stone bridge of Dublin, in
honour of the Virgin Mary, with an endowment of one hundred shillings
annually for the support of two chaplains to celebrate divine service
therein daily for Edward III., Queen Philippa, their ancestors and
successors, also for the welfare of the founder, the Mayor, and commonalty
of the city, and for the souls of all the faithful departed. Richard II., in
1385, in consideration of the damages and inconveniences which ensued to
himself, the citizens, and other subjects of Ireland, by the fall of the
great bridge of Dublin, and desiring to provide for its repair, granted to
the Mayor, bailiffs, and citizens, his ferry beyond the river Liffey, with
all the profits and customs for four years; empowering them to take for
every passenger a farthing; for every cow, horse, &c., of twelve pence value
and above, and every carcase of beef; a halfpenny; for every sheep, hog, or
carcase of the same, a farthing; and in reasonable proportion for all other
things at discretion, according to their quantity and value; the same, above
the reasonable costs of the ferry, to be expended in rebuilding the Bridge,
under the inspection of the Abbot of St Mary, Edmund Serle, Nicholas
Sergeant, Robert Burnell, Nicholas, twelfth Baron of Howth, John Birmingham,
and Thomas Maurewarde, to be faithfully expended by them annually during the
said term.
During the viceroyalty of Richard Duke of York, 1478-9, a corporation styled
the Guild of English Merchants trading in Ireland or the Fraternity of the
Blessed Virgin Mary, was established in the building called the Chapel del
Marie du Grace, on the "Brygge end," Dublin. A Parliament held at Dublin in
1481 enacted a Statute incorporating this body at the petition of its master
and wardens, James Welles, Thomas Whelbred, and Richard Pylkynton,
authorizing the admission of honest and skilful men and women into the
Fraternity, and prohibiting all English merchants, except members or agents
of the Guild, from trading in those parts of Ireland where the writ of the
King of England was obeyed. The Fraternity was authorized to elect masters
and wardens, to enact laws for their own government, to appoint beadles, use
a common seal, to hold a court, and adjudicate upon all disputes and
differences arising amongst the English merchants trading in Ireland, and to
commit all transgressors to the city gaol or to the Castle, the constable of
which was directed to receive prisoners upon the warrant of the master and
wardens of the Guild. The Fraternity was also licensed to acquire property
to the annual value of forty pounds for the support of their institution,
and the maintenance of a priest to celebrate divine service daily for the
welfare of the King, the Lord Deputy, and all members of the Society. The
chantry of the Guild of Merchants, having fallen into disuse at the
Reformation, was leased to Ralph Grimesditch, who in 1592 paid an annual
rent of 13s. 4d. as "farmer of a chapel called Out Lady's Chapel, on the
north side of the Bridge." Dr. Thomas Burke, Roman Catholic Bishop of
Ossory, who erroneously ascribes the construction of the Bridge to the
Dominican order, tells us that he remembered having seen in his youth an
ancient vase on the Bridge, which, according to tradition, had been used for
holding holy water to sprinkle the passengers. The Bridge-gate is described,
in the reign of Elizabeth, as "a square tower, two stone hie, the loer
storie is a vawte with two lowps, the upper storie is a timber lofte and no
lowpe. The towre is square, eighteene foote one waye, and fourteene foote
another waye, the wall seven foote thicke, and thirty foote hie from the
pavement." A public clock was, in 1573, set up on the southern side of this
gate, on the northern end of which were subsequently erected the royal arms
with an inscription, dated 1593, in which year the edifice was repaired,
having become decayed through age.
After the execution of Sir Felim O'Neil, in 1652, his head was "set upon the
gate that stood at the foot of the Bridge," his body having been cut into
quarters, which were sent to different parts of the kingdom.
The "Old Bridge," popularly so called, continued to be the only edifice of
that nature connecting the northern and southern sides of the city of
Dublin, until the erection of the "Bloody Bridge" in 1670. A Statute passed
in 1697 enacted that lamps should be erected for "sufficiently enlightening
the Old Bridge," the feat of leaping off which into the Liffey became, at
the commencement of the 18th century, much in fashion among the apprentices
and youths of Dublin. With reference to the performance of this exploit the
biographer of Charles Macklin, the actor and dramatist, observes that:
"While at school he was celebrated for feats of prowess and valour. He was
more than a match at boxing and cudgel-playing for any boy of his age - and
excelled in swimming, even there, where that art has always been carried to
a degree of perfection so great as to surprise all foreigners who have
occasion to visit Dublin. The practice of leaping off the bridges of Dublin,
and off the masts of ships into the river, was not then so common as it has
since become. It was at that time (1705) deemed an act of heroism, and
Macklin was among the first, if not the very first, who undertook that
seemingly hazardous feat of leaping from the Old Bridge into the Liffey."
Among the notorieties of Dublin for half a century, from the year 1720, was
a poor paralyzed cripple, popularly styled "Hackball," who stationed himself
on the Old Bridge, whence he occasionally drove through the city in a small
car drawn by a young mule or by two large dogs. Various attempts made to
restrain him from begging having proved ineffectual, he became generally
recognised as King of the Dublin Mendicants, and many jeux d'esprit in prose
and verse were published relative to "His Lowness, Prince Hackball."
The Old Bridge, built upon four arches, "remained a long time mouldering in
decay; a blemish amidst so many fine pontal edifices;" and Dr. John Rutty,
the Quaker naturalist, was so strongly impressed with the belief that the
structure would fall while he was crossing it, that for thirty years he made
a detour to avoid that danger. The Old Bridge was at length replaced by
Whitworth Bridge, so styled from its foundation having been laid on the 16th
of October, 1816, by Charles Earl of Whitworth, then Lord Lieutenant of
The passage from the southern end of the Bridge to Cook-street was anciently
known as "Vicus Pontis," and still retains the name of Bridge-street.
Portion of Bridge-street was destroyed in 1393 by a fire, which also
consumed various rolls of particulars ("Rotuli particularum") in the custody
of John le Sargeaunt, then resident in this locality.
Mr. Plunket's house in the Bridge-street is mentioned as one of the places
frequented by Roman Catholic priests in the reign of James I., and the order
of Capuchins, established for the first time in Ireland in 1623, under the
presidency of Father Edmund Ling, founded a convent about that period in
this street, where they celebrated Mass and preached in "a pretty little
chapel or chamber." A Dublin writer in 1634 comments as follows on the
costumes of the Capuchins and Franciscans:-
"The Capuchin hath a large frise coat to the foot, with a piece of course
canvas square, one halfe yard upon the back, girded unto him with a rude
massie rope, with a great knot before, and unto this coat sewed a steepled
hood, or capuch, from whence they have the name of Capuchins, of wellneere
two foot long, from the basis to the conus, and over this coat they have a
cloake of the same frise, comming a little below the waste. When as the
Cordelier professing the same order of S. Francis, and the same rule, hath a
coat of much better frise, without that square canvas on the back, with a
hood or a capuch not steepled at all, but round, and fitted unto his head, a
girdle of a cord, from whence he bath his name of Cordelier, the same
handsomely wrought with many artificiall knobs, orderly placed by equall
distances, asleeve, O, heavenly wide, which, besides the arme, will well
containe a couple of cheeses quartered, or a gamon of bacon a-piece, or as
many puddings as would well neere serve a whole convent of friars for their
breakfast, and over all this they have a cloak of the same frise descending
almost unto the foot. Observe then how different these habits be, and yet
these Franciscans againe which are of the reformation of S. Diego, they have
a distinct habit both from the Capuchin and Cordelier."
In 1630, the Capuchin Convent, with another Roman Catholic chapel in
Bridge-street, was seized by the Government, and, with the Jesuits' College
in Back-lane, conferred on the University of Dublin, from the records of
which it appears, that "two Bachelors were appointed Masters in
Bridge-street, and their place to be annually elective. And, some time
after, there is an entry that a Bachelor was appointed Lecturer of all the
Undergraduates in Bridge-street, to receive a quarterly tuition, and also
the same quarterly rent for their chambers as were paid in Trinity College,
viz., 3s. 4d. from a Fellow Commoner, and 1s. 8d. from a Pensioner. How long
these houses remained in the possession of the College cannot be
ascertained. They were certainly occupied by them in 1637. The enemies of
Lord Strafford laid to his charge at his trial, that he had restored to the
Papists two Mass-houses which had been assigned to the use of the
University; but he defended himself by alleging that they had been restored
in consequence of suits at the Council Board; and that he had endeavoured to
maintain their seizure." The University located about 18 scholars in this
convent, which was styled "St. Stephen's Hall," prayers being read there
twice a day, and it continued to be known as "the College in Bridge-street,"
down to the year 1647.
Roger O'More of Ballynagh, the originator of the Irish movement in 1641, is
stated to have escaped apprehension on the 22nd of October in that year, by
removing from his lodgings at the house of Moor, an inhabitant of
Bridge-street. "Next morning he heard of the seizure of Maguire and Mac
Mahon, that a diligent search was made for him, and a large reward offered
for apprehending him. Some friends got a boat, put themselves in sailors'
clothes, and he, in the same garb, got into it, was rowed to Island Bridge,
from whence in time of the night, he got to his daughter, Sarsfield's, at
Lucan, rested a few hours, and went to Ballynagh, where he had hopes of
being able to conceal himself, as the country was then all wooded, and that
he had some dependence on the people."
The host of Roger O'More appears to have been Patrick Moor, merchant, father
of Dr. Michael Moor, who was born in Bridge-street in 1640, and after having
completed his studies abroad, was appointed Vicar-General of Dublin by
Patrick Russell, Roman Catholic Archbishop of that See. Moor was the
chaplain and confessor of the Duke of Tyrconnell, on whose recommendation
James II. appointed him Provost of Trinity College, the library of which he
preserved during the Williamite wars, after which he retired to Paris, and
was there "highly caressed on the score of his learning and integrity." He
was subsequently appointed Censor of books at Rome, and appointed Rector of,
and Professor of Philosophy and Greek in, Cardinal Barberini's newly erected
College of Montefiascone, which, in consequence of its progress under his
government, was presented by Innocent XII. with an annual donation of 2,000
crowns. Moor returned to France after the death of James II., was twice
appointed Rector of the University of Paris, Principal of the College of
Navarre, and was nominated Royal Professor of Greek and Hebrew by Louis
XIV., who was directed by him in restoring and new-modelling the University
of Paris, until then " perplexed by the quiddities and entities of the
Peripatetic School." Moor established a Chair for Experimental Philosophy;
and principally on his account Louis XIV. founded the College of Cambrai. He
was so distinguished for pulpit eloquence, even in the era of Burdaloue,
Bossuet, and Massillon, that the city of Paris selected him in 1702 to
deliver the annual eloge upon Louis XIV.: "le Sieur Morus," says a French
contemporary, " Recteur de l'Universite de Paris, et cy-devant President du
College de Dublin, prononca, avec beaucoup d'eloquence, le panegyrique du
Roy, fonde par la Ville, qui s'y trouva en corps, avec un grand nombre de
persones de qualite."
Dr Moor joined with one Dr. John Farrelly in purchasing a house contiguous
to the Irish College for the reception of such poor young men of Ireland who
came there to study. He was blind for some years before his death, and
obliged to keep a person to read to him, who made him pay dear for his
trouble by embezzling and selling many hundred volumes of his choice
library, the remainder of which he bequeathed to the Irish College, as he
did his plate to the Leinster Provisor. He died, aged 85, in his apartments
of the College of Navarre, on the 22nd of August, 1726, and was buried in
the vault under the chapel of the Irish College, as he had requested in his
Moor's published works are principally Latin philosophical treatises,
deprecatory of the system of Descartes. Among his pupils, who, we are told,
became the most celebrated in Europe, he numbered Boileau, Fontenelle,
Montesquieu, Fleury, Languet, Poree, and, with many others, the famous
Rollin, his immediate successor.
A place called "The Cucull or Coockolds Post," noticed in the 16th century
as "hard by Gormond's Gate," was subsequently built upon, and in 1669
Alderman Peter Wybrant held "a corner house, called Cuckold's Post, at the
end of Bridge-street, half standing in Pipe-street, and halt in
Among the residents in Bridge-street were Sir Paul Davis, Principal
Secretary of State, 1661-1665; John Cheevers, whose son Edward was created
Viscount of Mount Leinster and Baron of Bannow by James II.; Simon Luttrell
of Luttrellstown, ancestor of the Carhampton family; Sir Erasmus Borrowes of
Grange-Mellon, county of Kildare; and Sir John Read, racked in 1641 by the
Lords Justices, who endeavoured to extort information from him concerning
the relations of Charles I. with the Confederate Irish.
Here also resided Patrick Darcy, seventh son of Seamus or James
O'Dorchaidhe, surnamed Riabhach, or the Swarthy, head of the Galway sept of
that name, although modern pedigrees have been constructed to prove that
this family was descended from the D'Arcys of France.
Patrick Darcy, born in 1598, was one of the most eminent Irish Roman
Catholic lawyers of his time, and took an active part in the Parliamentary
proceedings in 1640-41, having been selected in June of the latter year to
deliver an argument at a conference of the House of Commons with a Committee
of the Lords, on certain questions propounded by the Judges. His oration on
this occasion was printed at Waterford in 1643, and republished at Dublin in
1764. Darcy became a member of the Supreme Council of the Confederate Irish,
by whom he and his nephew Geoffrey Browne were appointed to draw up the
articles of peace with the Marquis of Ormond in 1646; and he was
subsequently nominated one of their commissioners to raise an army of 10,000
men, and to tax the kingdom for their pay to aid Charles I. against the
Parliament. In 1660 Darcy acted as second to Sir Jerome Alexander, second
Justice of the Common Pleas in his quarrel relative to precedency with his
brother Judge, Sir William Aston. Darcy died in 1668, and was buried in the
old Abbey of Kilconnel, county of Galway, leaving an only son, James. His
house in Bridge-street, after 1641, became occupied by Derrick Westenra, a
Dutch merchant, who, with his brother Warner, was naturalized in 1661.
Warner Westenra purchased considerable tracts of land in the King's County
from Colonel Grace, and by marriage with Eizabeth Wybrants, became ancestor
of the present Lord Rossmore. Copper tokens are still extant, issued in 1665
by Warner Westenra, whose name was for some time preserved in a lane off
Bridge-street, called " Westenra's-alley." On the eastern side of
Bridge-street was the residence of Sir George Gilbert, Coroner of the city,
and Mayor in 1661, who in 1675 was appointed Keeper of his Majesty's great
beam and common balance, with license of setting up the same in all ports,
cities, and boroughs in Ireland for 61 years.
Among the residents in Bridge-street at the Restoration were the Marquis of
Antrim; the Duke of Marlborough's father, Sir Winston Churchill, one of the
Commissioners of the Court of Claims; and Sir Hercules Langford, whose
estates passed to the Rowleys by the marriage of his daughter Mary to Sir
John Rowley in 1671.
Of the merchants who resided here about the same period may be noticed Marks
Wolfe, whose name was preserved in Wolfe's Alley; John Desminier, "at the
Sugar Loaf," Lord Mayor in 1666; Walter Motley, Lord Mayor in 1689; Sir
Michael Creagh; and Alderman Luke Hore. The latter was appointed by James
II. in 1689 to receive the money subscribed for the relief of his sick and
wounded soldiers:-
"Whereas," says the King, in a Proclamation dated 5th August, 1689, " an
address bath been made to us by several good and pious persons, for our
license to make a collection, for the better assistance of such of the
souldiers of our army, as now are, or shall be, sick and wounded in our
service, - We could not but very well approve of so charitable and
Christian-like a proposal, and have therefore thought fit hereby, not only
to license, but also earnestly to recommend the same to all the nobility,
gentry, and others throughout this kingdom, to contribute towards so good a
work, in such proportion as they shall think fit. And for the further
promoting and effecting thereof, We do hereby likewise recommend it to the
several Archbishops and Bishops, as well Roman Catholicks as Protestants, to
appoint in their respective diocesses and parishes, some fit persons to
demand and receive the benevolence and charity of all good Christians for
the use of the said sick and wounded souldiers; and that they do also take
care) that the names of the persons who shall so contribute, together with
what money stall be so collected upon that occasion, be returned and paid
into the hands of Luke Hore of Dublin, merchant, who is hereby authorized to
receive the same. And we shall take care that the same (over and above our
allowance to such sick and wounded souldiers) be applied and issued from
time to time, for the use and purpose aforesaid."
Sir Michael Creagh sat as Member for Dublin in the Jacobite Parliament, was
elected Lord Mayor in 1689, and appointed Paymaster-General by James II.,
for whom he levied an infantry corps styled Creagh's Regiment. After the
Williamites had obtained possession of the metropolis, Creagh's house,
together with his plate and goods, stated to have been of very great value,
was seized and embezzled by Coningsby, one of the Lords Justices. Creagh
subsequently solicited either a restitution of portion of his property, or a
pension upon the establishment of Ireland; and in a memorial to Lord
Carteret, dated 23rd of November, 1725, he speaks of the "vast losses and
innocent sufferings" of himself and his three sons; adding that he had been
" reduced to the utmost want and indigency, whilst serving His Majesty or
the Crown, it being now two years and a half ago since the petitioner and
family parted from London:' Creagh's name is appended to a broadside, styled
"A Poem to his Excellency the Lord Carteret, Lieutenant-General and General
Governor of his Majesty's Kingdom of Ireland, upon his safe arrival in said
Kingdom." Addressing the citizens of Dublin in 1727, Creagh alludes to his
having resided for seven years in Amsterdam, and speaks as follows of
himself:- "I have once been elected and sworn chief magistrate of this city,
and served the usual time thereunto, though I have paid dear for it, and
that but little regard is now had for my sufferings upon that account,
though it were but reasonable that some consideration were had for what is
justly due to me upon said account, and what all those, who preceded, and
succeeded me in said station, have had to this time, I mean the £500 out of
the Exchequer, besides the rest, and the more than ordinary expenses,
charge, and trouble, I have been at, to save and preserve this city, and its
inhabitants, when crowded and overcharged with French and other foreign
Popish troops, who aimed at nothing more than the plunder and ruin, chiefly
of the Protestant inhabitants; and but myself and regiment the chief
protectors, and opposers to said mischief (as the worthy prelate, his Grace
my Lord Archbishop of Dublin, has solemnly certified, since my coming last
for Dublin), that I am, in some measure, intitled to wish and desire its
welfare, and consequently may without offence to any body, give my advice
and opinion to promote the publick welfare, both spiritual and temporal of
its inhabitants."
In Bridge-street, in one building, were held the Marshalseas of the city and
the Four Courts, until the removal of the farmer in 1704; the latter prison
was subsequently transferred to Molesworth's Court, an Act of Parliament
having been passed in 1698, directing the separation of these two gaols.
A Dominican convent was established on the eastern side of Bridge-street
about the year 1708, mainly through the exertions of the Rev. Stephen Mac
Egan. Nine clergymen resided in this convent, in which a sermon was preached
in the Irish language at 7 o'clock on every Sunday morning. The most eminent
divine connected with this convent was Dr. Thomas Burke, Roman Catholic
Bishop of Ossory from 1759 to 1786, and author of the history of the Irish
Dominicans, published in 1762, under the title of "Hibernia Dominicana." Dr.
Burke compiled the offices of the Irish saints appended to the Roman
Catholic Missal and Breviary, and also issued, in 1772, a supplement to his
"Hibernia Dominicana." The Dominicans removed from Bridge-street about 1770,
from which period their establishment there, to which theyc was also an
entrance from Cook-street, became the Roman Catholic chapel of St. Audöens
parish, for which purpose it was used till the completion of the new edifice
in High-street, within the last few years.
In Bridge-street resided Dr. Walter Skelton, Roman Catholic Dean of
Leighlin, and Rector of the parish of St. Peter, Dublin. Skelton, who was
educated at the Irish College at Paris, and ordained in 1688 at Kilkenny, by
the Roman Catholic Bishop of Ossory, acquired great reputation as a
mathematician, and became the instructor of Charles O'Conor of Balenagar,
who was sent to Dublin in 1727 to study mathematics, and make a further
progress in the dead languages. The Rev. Charles O'Conor has left us the
fdlowing notice of his grandfather's instructor: "A Mr. Walter Skelton, a
Roman Catholic priest, to whose care Mr. O'Conor was consigned in Dublin,
and whose many acts of friendship he often mentioned to me with grateful
remembrance, was well aware of the many inconveniencies brought upon youth
by confining them too long to Greek and Latin. He was satisfied that his
pupil should perceive the beauties of Virgil and Horace, Homer and
Demosthenes; and instead of the eternal pedantry which prevailed at this
time, not only among the poor vulgar Irish, but even at College, he showed
him the cause of the variety of the seasons, of the inequality of days and
nights, the wonders of vision, the nature of fluids, and the order of the
universe. 'Mr. Skelton,' says he, in a letter to his friend Dr. Carpenter,
'was the first who gave me a relish for these entertaining, edifying, and
sublime studies; my mind was enlightened, and my heart, contracted hitherto
by the narrowness of such selfish and bigoted times, began to dilate and to
expand itself by contemplation. - What is the reason, said Skelton to me one
day after dinner, that you see the light of the sun after sunset? I made
some ridiculous answer, upon which he smiled, and taking the punch bowl,
observe, said be, the sprig at the bottom of this bowl; withdraw from it
just to such a distance as merely to lose sight of the sprig, and no more.
When I had done so, he took the kettle, poured in some water, and without
his moving the bowl, or my moving from my place, I again saw the sprig.
There, said he, is one of the wonders of vision, and you will not tell why
or how you see the light of the sun after sunset, until you can explain the
cause of this other phenomenon, no less extraordinary. Here,' adds O'Conor,
'I called to him eagerly for an explanation, which he gave, on condition
that I would apply to natural philosophy."'
Skelton died in Bridge-street on the 31st of October, 1737, and was buried
in the church of St. Fiech, at Sletty, in the Queen's County, which had been
the ancient inheritance of his ancestors.
In Bridge-street in 1739, died John Dowdal or Dorrell, Provincial of the
order of Augustinian hermits, and author of a Life of St. Augustin, and of a
Treatise on the Infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church. Having studied
in the great Augustinian Convent at Paris, he was appointed, on his return
to Ireland, preacher to James II., after whose dethronement he was intrusted
by several English noblemen with the education of their children, whom he
accompanied in their travels. Dowdal revisited Ireland in 1727, and in the
succeeding year was appointed Provincial of his order, which office he held
till the period of his death.
At the sign of the "Crown" in Bridge-street a masonic lodge used to assemble
in 1751, on every second Thursday. David Gibson (1755) and Bartholomew
Gorman (1763-1771) publishers, also resided in this street, which in the
middle of the last century was chiefly occupied by merchants of wealth and
eminence, amongst whom was Thomas Braughall, afterwards distinguished as an
active advocate of the removal of the disabilities of the Irish Roman
Catholics. Braughall's house, No. 13, Bridge-street, came in 1785 into the
possession of another merchant named Oliver Bond, a native of the north of
Ireland, who, from the year 1782, had traded in Pill-lane as a wholesale
woollen draper. Bond became a prominent member of the original Society of
United Irishmen of Dublin, and on the 1st of March, 1793, he, together with
the Hon. Simon Butler, were committed to Newgate by the House of Lords, and
condemned to pay each a fine of #500, for having, as chairman and secretary
of a meeting of the Society, authorized the publication of a document
condemning the inquisitorial proceedings of Parliament, and setting forth
the limits of the powers of the House of Peers. At a full meeting of the
Society held on the same day, Beauchamp Bagenal Harvey, chairman, and Thomas
Russell, secretary, a resolution was passed that "a deputation of five do
wait, as early as possible, on the Hon. Simon Butler and Mr. Oliver Bond, to
express the feelings of this Society as men, as citizens, and as United
Irishmen, on the events of this day; to testify our warmest sense of
gratitude for their dignified and magnanimous avowal of the resolutions of
this Society before the House of Lords; and to pledge to them our lives, our
fortunes, and our sacred honour, that we will never forsake our officers,
nor abandon the post of legal and constitutional principle which we and our
officers have hitherto maintained, unshaken, unseduced, and unterrified."
Bond and Butler were obliged to discharge the fines imposed upon them, and
excluded from making any appeal by the payment having been enforced at the
Treasury without passing through the ordinary medium of the Revenue side of
the Exchequer. On their egress from gaol, on the 16th of August, 1793, after
the expiration of the term of their imprisonment, the Society presented them
with a congratulatory address on the sacrifices which they had made in
support of the objects of their institution. Bond, who became "prosperous in
a very extensive trade, and by that tie connected with every part of the
kingdom," was described as "a man of strong mind and body, and of talents
which, if perverted to the purpose of mischief, would become formidable
indeed." In 1797 he was exceedingly active in administering the oath of the
United Irishmen, and in arming and embodying men for the promotion of the
objects of the Association, whose meetings were generally held at 10 a. m.,
at his house, where Thomas Reynolds, the informer, was sworn in early in the
year 1797. On the 19th of February, 1798, a provincial meeting, held at
Bond's, passed a resolution: "That we will pay no attention to any measure
which the Parliament of this kingdom may adopt, to divert the public mind
from the grand object we have in view, as nothing short of the entire and
complete regeneration of our country can satisfy us." This meeting was
adjourned to Monday, the 12th of March, which was appointed for the general
assembly of the Delegates from the province of Leinster. Information
relative to those movements having been conveyed to Government by Thomas
Reynolds, a warrant was issued against the suspected members of the Society,
and committed for execution to William Swan, justice of the peace, who
having on the night of the 11th of January privately reconnoitred Bond's
house, proceeded thither at 11 on the following morning, accompanied by 12
sergeants in coloured clothes. Sergeant-Major Galloguely was the first who
entered the house, and finding Bond standing in the middle of his office, on
the left side of the door, talking to two ladies and gentlemen, repeated to
him the pass-words, "Where's Mac Cann? Is Ivers from Carlow come?" Before
Bond had time to make any reply, Swan entered and stated he had a warrant
against him for high treason, and that he and all his inmates were the
King's prisoners. Bond was secured without any resistance; and Swan gives
the following account of his subsequent proceedings:
"I then bounced up stairs; the sergeant had got into the lower part, but I
bounced immediately after, and proceeded to the room - a back room - that
appeared to be an addition to the house, where I received positive
information they were to meet. Upon entering the room, I saw a number of
persons about the room in small groups, and one man sitting at the table,
with pen, ink, and paper, and a prayer-book. I snapped at the paper
directly; my anxiety to seize the paper was so great that the man sitting at
the table took advantage of it, and went among the groups, so that I could
not identify him. The paper was fresh written - the ink hardly dry. I then,
after seizing the paper, directed the several persons to hold up their
hands, to prevent their destroying their papers, as I had previously
directed the serjeants to be particularly attentive to watch the hands of
the people, and if they saw any papers to bring them immediately to me."
Under the table was found a shamrock made of green ribbons, inscribed in
gold letters, "Erin go bragh," underneath which was a harp without a crown;
and Sergeant Mac Dougall of the Dumbarton Fencibles raked with his bayonet
from under the borate a small account or memorandum-book, with some other
papers. The prayer-book found on the table had been used by the Delegates in
swearing that they had been duly elected to attend the Council; and among
the documents seized, which consisted of various letters, provincial
returns, and accounts, was a list of printed toasts and sentiments,
including the following: "The green flag of Ireland-May her sons unite and
support it." "Ireland a republic and the world free." "A speedy and radical
reform." "May revolution never cease till liberty is established." "The
United Irishmen - success to their efforts." "Mother Erin dressed in green
ribbons by a French millner, if she can't be dressed without her." The
Delegates arrested at Bond's were - Peter Ivers, Laurence Kelly, George
Cummins, John Lynch, Laurence Griffin, Thomas Reynolds, John Mac Cann,
executed on 28th July, Patrick Devine, Thomas Traynor, William Michael
Byrne, hanged on 19th July, Christopher Martin, Peter Bannan, James Rose,
and Moore's friend, young Edward Hudson, who was said to have fainted when
Swan entered the room. Bond was brought to trial for high treason on the
23rd and 24th of July, 1798, and although defended by Curran and Ponsonby,
the jury, after a deliberation of seven minutes, returned a verdict of
guilty. When asked what he had to say why sentence should not be passed upon
him, Bond made no reply, and Justice Day, addressing him, remarked: "It is a
melancholy subject of reflection that a gentleman of your condition and
figure in life, - who, under the existing laws and constitution, which you
would have subverted, have flourished and accumulated great property - in
the prime of life and vigour of health - endued by nature with rare
accomplishments of mind and person, should have unfortunately, not only for
yourself and afflicted family, but for that country to which you might have
been an ornament, perverted those precious gifts of Providence, and have
made so unhappy and calamitous a use of them." At the conclusion of his
address, Judge Day pronounced the following sentence upon the prisoner:
"You, Oliver Bond, are to be taken from the place in which you stand to the
gaol from whence you came, and thence to the common place of execution,
there to be hanged by the neck, but not until you are dead, for while you
are yet living, your bowels are to be taken out and thrown in your face, and
your head is to be cut off, and your head and limbs to be at the King's
disposal." Bond subsequently received a conditional pardon, but died of an
apoplectic attack in Newgate; his house is now known as No. 9, Lower
Various meetings of the United Irishmen were held in the "Brazen Head," an
inn located, from the year 1668, in a recess at the rere of the western side
of Bridge-street, where it still exists. At one of those assemblies, in
February, 1797, Oliver Bond laid before the Society a plan for obtaining
possession of the metropolis; and some days after the arrest of the
Delegates, another meeting held here was attended by "one Michael Reynolds
of Naas, who was said to be a distant relative of Mr. Thomas Reynolds, and
who had been particularly active in the Society, and useful to it. This
young man addressed the meeting at some length; he said that circumstances
had lately transpired in the country, and steps, with regard to individuals,
had been taken by Government which made it evident that a traitor was in
their camp, who must belong to one of the country committees, and one who
held a high rank in their Society: that traitor, he said, was Thomas
Reynolds of Kilkea Castle, and if he were allowed to proceed in his career,
they and their friends would soon be the victims of his treachery. In a tone
and manner which left an indelible impression on the minds of his hearers,
and produced an extraordinary effect, he asked if the Society were to be
permitted to be destroyed, or if Reynolds were to be allowed to live; in
short, he demanded of the meeting their sanction for his removal, and
undertook that it should be promptly effected. The proposal was unanimously
and very properly rejected by the meeting." Michael Reynolds, who later in
the same year led the peasantry in their attack upon the barracks of Naas,
was a "young man of great muscular strength and activity, of a short stature
and dark complexion, and somewhat celebrated in the country for his
Until late in the last century the only passage from the upper part of
Bridge-street to the western side of the town was through "Gormond's-gate,"
at the south-western extremity of the street; the site of the present upper
Bridge-street being occupied by the "Black Dog" Gaol, and New Hall Market,
the latter containing upwards of 80 butchers' stalls, for which the city
received an annual rent of #239 15s.
Gormond's Gate, or "Porta Gormundi," in the city wall, appears to have been
so styled from the personage whose name is preserved in "Grange Gorman," on
the northern side of the city, and who, according to legendary chroniclers,
was an African prince, who subdued Ireland, and subsequently with his Irish
troops, aided by Hengist and Horsa, conquered the kingdom of England. These
legends were resorted to by the lawyers employed to compile the Statute
declaring Elizabeth's title to the kingdom of Ireland in 1569, which
document sets forth that "afore the comming of Irishmen into Ireland they
were dwelling in a province of Spain, called Biscan, whereof Bayon was a
member, and chief citie; and that at the said Irishmen's comming into
Ireland, one King Gurmonde, sonne to the noble King Belan, King of Great
Britaine, which nowe is called England, was Lord of Bayon, as many of his
successors were to the time of King Henry the Second, first conqueror of
this realm, and therefore the Irishmen should be the King of England his
people, and Ireland his land."
Thady Dowling, Chancellor of Leighlin, mentions a tradition that Gurmund, or
O'Gormagheyn, founded the cathedral of that town, in which he was said to
have been interred, and tells us that in 1589, "Karolus Rowac, alias
Makeyigan, clerk, Donagh M'Gilpatrick, and Gilleranoy, carpenters, saw the
tumbe with their eyes, and Thady Dowling cancellar ecclesiae found his
epitaph in simple verse as followeth:
"Hic jacet humatus dux fundator Leniae, ici id est Leghleniae.
En Gorindi Burchardus vir gratus ecclesiae.'"
Dowling also adds that further vestiges of this personage were extant in the
names of Gormond's Grove and Gormond's Ford, in the vicinity of Leighlin.
My own decided opinion," says Gratianus Lucius, "is that those names are
derived from some of the family of the O'Gormans, who were once famous for
their heroic achievements. For even at the present day (1662), Gormanstown
is wratten in Irish baile Ghormain, that is, the town of Gorman; and
Gorman's Wood and Ford are called in Irish Coill and Ath Uí Ghormaín. It is
highly probable, also, that Leighlin was built by an O'Gorman, and not by a
foreigner called Gurmund. No person named Burchard is found in the
genealogical tables of the O'Gorman family. But there is a Murchard in that
line, the fifth in descent from the founder of the family; and Murchard, by
a slight change of one letter, might become Burchard. He was called the son
of Gorman, according to the usual custom of the Irish, who generally gave
the name of some illustrious man to all his descendants, by prefixing the
word Mac, that is son. But the Gorman who founded that family and name, was
neither a Norwegian, as Cambrensis will have it, nor a Dane, as Ware says,
but a thorough Irish-man, descended from Daire Barrach, son of Cathaeir Mor,
King of Ireland, as Keating proves from the old annals. His descendants were
called Mac Gormain, and, according -to O'Dubhagain, were Lords of Leinster
and Kings of Ui Mairche, a tract of country lying near Sliabh Mairge." The
importance subsequently acquired by this clan in Leinster is recorded to
have been predicted in the testament of Cathacir mor, King of Erin, in the
second century, in which document that monarch is represented to have
addressed as follows his second son Daire, the progenitor of the Mac
My valor, my martial impetuosity,
I bequeath to my fierce, vigorous Daire;
The darling of the assembly
Shall every steadfast son of the tribes of thy loins be;
O, Daire, with boldness,
Sit on the frontier of North Leinster;
Thou shalt harass the lands of South Leinster.
Receive not price for thy protection;
Thy daughters shall be blest with fruitfulness
If they wed; thy old father
Cathaeir, the head of this province,
Gives thee his benediction,
That thou shouldst be a powerful champion
Over the green Gailians (men of Leinster)."
Cambrensis, who, in the twelfth century, resided for some time in Dublin,
observed that no vestiges of Gurmundus were then extant, whence the legend
of his having erected one of the city gates would appear to be of
comparatively recent origin. Harris controverts the supposed foundation of
this gate either by "Gormundus" or the Danes, and assigns its erection to a
period after 1316. The latter conjecture is nevertheless erroneous, as among
the manuscripts of Trinity College is preserved a deed executed about 1280,
whereby Jean Le Gros granted to Roger d'Esseburn a certain piece of ground,
with the buildings thereon, under Gormond's Gate, paying 11 shillings
annually to the Commonalty of Dublin: witnesses, Elyas Burel and Richard
Olof; and the building appears to have been the stone gate, near the Bridge
of Dublin, alluded to in a document of the year 1200. Gormond's Gate is
subsequently described as "a square tower, two stories high, whereof one
room is upon a vault, with three loop-holes, the other room is a timber loft
with three loop-holes, and a slate roof. The tower is square, 18 feet one
way and 15 feet another way; the wall five feet thick, and 30 feet high,
with a portcullis for the same gate." In the 16th century the name of
Gormond's Gate became converted into Ormond's Gate, which, although a mere
corruption, gave rise to a legend that "the Irish assaulting the citie were
discomfited by the Earle of Ormond, then by good hap sojourning at Dublin;
and because he issued out at that gate, to the end the valiant exploit and
famous conquest of so worthie a potentate should be ingrailed in perpetual
memorie, the gate bare the name of Ormond his gate."
The name of Gormond's Gate, thus converted into "Ormond's-gate," was still
further corrupted by the native Irish, who styled it Geata na n-Iarla, or
the Earl's Gate, from its supposed connexion win' the Earls of Ormond ; and
finally, by another change, the name of "Ormond Gate" was transformed into
"Wormwood Gate:" "Haec," observes a Latin writer, "Ormondia dicitur,
Hibernicis Orwown, id est Frons Momoniae, Anglis Ormond, et plurimis
corruptissime Wormewood." A house near Gormond's Gate was fitted up in 1678
by the Dublin Quakers for a place of worship, where "a meeting was usually
held in the time of the half-year's meeting, and Dublin Friends kept their
meeting here upon the first days in the morning."
"About the middle of the summer of 1683," says the Quaker chronicler, "the
Government gave orders to the several sorts of Dissenters in Dublin, that
they should forbear meeting publicly together in their worship-houses as
formerly; the Archbishop of Dublin (Francis Marsh) also sent for Anthony
Sharp, and told him it was the mind and desire of the Government that
Friends should also forbear meeting in their public meeting-houses; but
Friends returned answer, that they believed it was their indispensable duty
to meet together to worship the great God of heaven and earth, from whom we
receive all our mercies, and not to forbear assembling ourselves together
for fear of punishment from men, for that we met purely to worship the Lord,
and not upon any other account. So, according to the desire of the
Government, other professors generally left their meeting-houses, but
Friends met together to worship the Lord as formerly, as they were persuaded
it was their duty to do. So upon a first day in the sixth month this year
came the Marshal and several of the Mayor's officers to the meeting at
Wormwood Gate, where John Burnyeat being speaking, the Marshal commanded him
to go with him, which after some discourse he did. He commanded the meeting
to disperse, but Friends kept quiet in their places. John was carried before
the Mayor, with whom he had some discourse to this effect: he asked him,
'Why they did act contrary to the Government, having been commanded not to
meet?' John answered, 'We do nothing in contempt of the Government.' But,
said he, 'Why do you not obey them?' John replied, 'Because it is matter of
conscience to us, and that which we believe to be our indispensable duty, to
meet together to worship God.' To which he answered, 'You may be misled.'
John told him, 'If we are misled, we are willing to be informed, if any can
do it.' Then it was urged, 'other Dissenters had submitted, and why would
not we?' John said, 'What they dowill be no plea for us before the
Judgement-seat of the great God. So after some other discourse the Marshal
committed John to the Marshalsea Prison, to which also were taken afterwards
Alexander Seaton, Anthony Sharp, and others. Now," adds the Quaker
historian, "several sober persons observing other professors to shrink in
this time of persecution, whilst Friends kept their meetings as usual, came
to our meetings and became faithful Friends." In 1686 the Quakers
relinquished the house at Wormwood Gate, which was found to be too small and
not sufficiently commodious. In the last century Elizabeth Salmon held from
the Corporation, at an annual rent of five pounds, a part of the old town
ditch near "Gorman's Gate;" and although no vestiges of the portal now
exist, the name of" Wormwood Gate" is still applied to 11 houses erected on
portion of its site.
Extending towards Newgate from the southern side of Gormond's Gate stood a
range of buildings styled the "New Row," erected about the middle of the
16th century. In this locality was the residence of Samuel Molyneux, third
son and heir to Daniel Molyneux, Ulster King-at-Arms, and father of Thomas
and William Molyneux. Samuel Molyneux, although originally educated for the
Church, entered the army, and served through the wars of 1641, in which he
distinguished himself as a proficient in engineering and gunnery; and it is
recorded that, at the battle of Ross, he so disposed the small cannon, that
one discharge of two pieces destroyed 80 men and horses. After the
termination of the civil wars, Molyneux declined the appointment of Recorder
of Dublin, as well as an offer of a portion of the Down Survey, preferring
to occupy the office of Master-Gunner of Ireland. "He had a gun-yard
enclosed in the field belonging to the Soldiers' Hospital, with a butt and
culverin mounted, and about half a mile of ground worked out for the random
shot of the mortar; he was eminently skilled and curious in the art, and
kept the place of Mortar Gunner merely for the delight he had in making
experiments in that way; he used to say, it was his friend in time of need,
when he had no other support; that he loved it, and would stick to it for
old friendship's sake. He wrote a book of gunnery according to the
principles of Gallieo and Torricelli, 'de motu projectuum,' after he was 70
years of age;" and William Molyneux in a letter in 1684 says:- "My father is
now employed in casting a mortar piece for the King, of 14 inches' diameter,
which carries a ball of 200 lbs. We shall so fortify it, that I question not
but to shoot two miles, as the French do at Genoa."
Captain Samuel Molyneux, who died in 1693, was a "man of excellent judgment,
and, at the same time, of a lively and vivacious disposition - tolerably
well read in natural philosophy, and a nice and curious observer of nature -
an excellent mathematician, and particularly remarkable for pleasantry in
conversation, and aptness in story-telling-and so much was he admired by all
who knew him that he bore the soubriquet of 'Honest Sam Molyneux.' So
smoothly did this good man glide through the vale, that he never had a
contest or a law-suit with any one. His filial piety was the theme of
admiration, and the poor weekly partook of his bounty at his door. He has
declared that he was never guilty of intemperance but once in his life, and
that by accident; and this is more astonishing in the life of a soldier of
his time. He was a constant reader of the Sacred Scriptures, and so attached
to the Church of England, that even in Cromwell's time he always found some
private meeting where the Liturgy formed part of the service - and for fifty
years he had never laid down on a bed of sickness."
His son William, after having passed through the University of Dublin,
studied for three years in the Middle Temple, and through his interest with
the Duke of Ormond, was appointed in 1684, joint Surveyor of the King's
Buildings and Works in Ireland, having in the preceding year originated the
Philosophical Society of Dublin, to which he was elected Secretary. Molyneux
was sent by Government in 1685 to survey the most important fortresses in
the Netherlands, and in 1690 constituted Commissioner for stating the
accounts of the army, elected Member of Parliament for the University in
1692, and appointed Master in Chancery in 1695.
William Molyneux distinguished himself by various writings on philosophy,
natural history, and astronomy, the two principal of whch were the
Sciothericum Telescopicum, or a new contrivance of adapting a telescope to
an horizontal dial for observing the moment of time by day or night; useful
in all astronomical observations, and for regulating and adjusting curious
pendulum watches, and other time-keepers, with proper tables requisite
thereunto." 4to, Dublin, 1686: and - "Dioptrica Nova: a treatise of
Dioptricks, in two parts; wherein the various effects and appearances of
spherick glasses, both convex and concave, single and combined, in
telescopes and microscopes, together with their usefulness in many concerns
of human life, are explained." 4to, London, 1692.
Writing to his brother Thomas, in 1694, William Molyneux says: "My library
consists of but a few volumes (I think at present not much above one
thousand), but they are such as are choice and curious on those subjects
wherein I delighted, chiefly mathematical and philosophical; there are also
many volumes, philological and miscellanys. I have likewise a good
collection of common law-books, and amongst each kind of these there are
some volumes scarcely to be met with. As to my instruments, I had formerly
some large astronomical ones, but these I parted with, intending to procure
better; but the distractions of the times, and now, an infirm constitution
in my health coming on me, I have desisted from prosecuting celestial
observations, as exposing me too much to nocturnal colds, and other
inconveniencys. The instruments therefore which I yet retain (besides the
mechanick tools left by my father, and a few mathematical trifles I myself
purchased) are chiefly dioptrical, such as glasses for telescopes of all
lengths, from one foot to thirty feet, microscopes of all kinds, prismes,
magick lantern, micrometers, pendulum clocks, &c." After recapitulating the
names of his literary friends, William Molyneux adds: "An ostentatious man
would perhaps have preferred and mentioned, before all these learned
acquaintances, a visit from a person of quality, or a title, but to me there
seems no comparison, or else I might have told you of visits I have received
from the Duke of Wirtenberg, General Ginckel, and Scravemoer, when in this
kingdom, but this deserves but just naming, if so much itself." One of
Molyneux's most intimate acquaintances was Robert Molesworth, author of the
celebrated work on Denmark, to whom he alludes as follows in a letter to his
friend John Locke in April, 1698: "I am here very happy in the friendship of
an honour-able person, Mr. Molesworth, who is an hearty admirer, and
acquaintance, of yours. We never meet but we remember you; he sometimes
comes into my house, and tells me, it is not to pay a visit to me, but to
pay his devotion to your image that is in my dining room." Molyneux's last
and most celebrated work - the "Case of Ireland being bound by acts of
Parliament in England stated" - was published in 1698, with the object of
arresting the English Parliament in their proceedings for the destruction of
the Irish woollen manufacture. Writing to Locke, at the period of the
publication of the book, the author observes: "This you'll say is a nice
subject, but I think I have treated it with that caution and submission that
it cannot justly give any offence, insomuch that I scruple not to put my
name to it; and, by advice of some good friends here, have presumed to
dedicate it to his Majesty. - I cannot pretend this to be an accomplished
performance; it was done in haste, and intended to overtake the proceedings
at Westminster, but it comes too late for that: what effect it may possibly
have in time to come, God and the wise Council of England only know; but
were it again under my hands I could considerably amend and add to it. But,
till I either see how the Parliament of Westminster is pleased to take it,
or till I see them risen, I do not think it adviseable for me to go on
t'other side the water. Though I am not apprehensive of any mischief from
them, yet God only knows what resentments captions men may take on such
occasions." The preface of this work is dated February 8, 1697-8, and its
author's death, occasioned by the rupture of a blood-vessel, took place on
the 11th of the following October. He was buried, as before noticed, in St.
Audoen's Church, and his portrait, painted by Kneller, is to be seen in the
Examination Hall of Trinity College, Dublin. His son Samuel, born in 1689,
was appointed Secretary to George II. when Prince of Wales, constituted Lord
of the Admiralty and member of the Privy Council, and married Elizabeth
Diana, eldest daughter of Algernon Capel, Earl of Essex. Samuel Molyneux,
who was highly skilled in optics and astronomy, died without issue in
1727-8. His estates, after his relict's death, devolved upon his uncle, Dr.
Thomas Molyneux, who continued to reside in the family mansion in New Row
till the year 1711.
In the reign of Charles II. a meeting-house was erected in New Row by a
congregation of Dissenters, formed by Dr. Samuel Winter, Ex-Provost of
Trinity College, and the Rev. Samuel Mather, who, on the passing of the Act
of Uniformity, resigned the offices which they held in the Established
Church. "The accession of these excellent men to the system of conformity
was much courted. Had they subscribed to its tests, professed its creeds,
and complied with its ritual, they might have attained to the highest
ecclesiastical dignities in the land." Dr. Winter, who possessed a
considerable private estate, which descended to his heirs, "was a man of
great zeal, rich in good works, and his faith and patience were very signal
both in his life and death." The Rev. Samuel Mather, "a member of one of the
most remarkable families of Nonconformists in England, and Puritans in the
American colony at Boston," came to Ireland with Henry Cromwell, was
appointed Senior Fellow of Trinity College, and ordained in 1656 co-pastor
of St. Nicholas' parish, a portion of the congregation of which, adhering to
his tenets, used to assemble at his house till their building in New Row was
completed. After having suffered various persecutions for his Nonconformist
principles, Mather died on the 29th of October, 1671, and was interred in
his former church of St. Nicholas. He was succeeded by his brother, the Rev.
Nathaniel Mather, who continued minister in New Row till 1689, having had as
co-pastor, till 1681, the Rev. Timothy Taylor, appointed colleague to the
Rev. Samuel Mather in 1668. The New Row congregation removed to
Eustace-street in 1728, during the ministry of the Rev. Nathaniel Weld, who
had been ordained co-pastor of the Society in February, 1682.
The "Ram Inn," kept by Mr. Matthews, was located at the lower end of New
Row, in 1730; and at No. 32 here resided Thomas M'Donnell, bookseller and
publisher from 1781 to 1788.
At the northern extremity of New Row stood "Mullinahac," a name which
appears to have been formed from the Irish Muilenn-a'-chaca, signifying the
foul or unclean mill. So early as the close of the 12th century a mill near
the Bridge was bestowed upon the convent of the Holy Trinity, by a native
Irishman named Gilla Muire, and the mills of the Hospital of St. John of
Jerusalem appear also to have stood in this vicinity. The first person of
any importance who settled here was John Allen, "sent over as a factor for
the Dutch in the latter end of Queen Elizabeth's reign; who being very
handsome in his person, and of great skill in architecture, was much
esteemed, and consulted by the most eminent of the nobility and gentry in
their buildings, particularly by the Earl of Strafford, Lord Lieutenant of
Ireland, in his large intended edifice near Naas; and laid out the plan of
his own house at Mullinahac near Dublin, leaving it to be finished by his
son, Sir Joshua, for whom he acquired a considerable fortune, and who made
very large additions thereto by purchase, and an extensive trade, being a
merchant of the first rank. In 1664 he was Sheriff of the City of Dublin,
and in 1673 served the office of Lord Mayor; was knighted and appointed 8th
June, 1679, one of the Commissioners for administering the oaths of
supremacy and allegiance to such as should be entered into the artillery
garden; but was involved in the general Act of Attainder, passed by King
James' Parliament in 1689; and had his estate of #2,720 a year in Ireland,
and #200 a year in England, sequestered."
His son, John Allen, created, in 1717, Baron Allen of Stillorgan, and
Viscount Allen, was succeeded by Joshua Allen, a weak and dissipated man,
who was trepanned by Lionel Duke of Dorset into a marriage with Margaret,
daughter of Samuel Du Pass, first clerk in the Secretary of State's Office,
whom he subsequently refused to acknowledge as his wife. "But the lady,
after living some time in close retirement, caused an advertisement to be
inserted in the papers, stating the death of a brother in the East Indies,
by which Miss Margaret Du Pass had succeeded to a large fortune.
Accordingly, she put on mourning, and assumed an equipage conforming to her
supposed change of fortune. Lord Allen's affairs being very much deranged,
he became now as anxious to prove the marriage with the wealthy heiress as
he had formerly been to disown the unportioned damsel; and succeeded, after
such opposition as the lady judged necessary to give colour to the farce.
Before the deceit was discovered, Lady Allen, by her good sense and talents,
had obtained such ascendance over her husband, that they ever afterwards
lived in great harmony."
Lord Allen was satirized as follows under the name of "Traulus," by Swift,
whom he had offended by some observations made in 1730, relative to the
presentation of the freedom of the city of Dublin to the Dean:-
"Let me now the vices trace,
From the father's scoundrel race
Who could give the looby such airs?
Were they masons, were they butchers?
Herald, lend the Muse an answer
From his atavus and grandsire:
This was dext'rous at his trowel,
That was bred to kill a cow well
Hence the greasy clumsy mien
In his dress and figure seen;
Hence the mean and sordid soul,
Like his body, rank and foul;
Hence that wild suspicious peep,
Like a rogue that steals a sheep;
Hence he learnt the butcher's guile,
How to cut your throat and smile;
Like a butcher, doom'd for life
In his mouth to wear a knife:
Hence he draws his daily food
From his tenants' vital blood.
In him tell me which prevail
Female vices most or male?
What produced him, can you tell?
Human race, or imps of hell?"
Another satire describes John Allen, Member for Carysfort, and Robert Allen,
representative of Wicklow, as:-
"--- Allens Jack and Bob,
First in every wicked job,
Son and brother to a queer,
Brain-sick brute, they call a peer.
We must give them better quarter,
For their ancestor trod mortar,
And at Howth, to boast his fame,
On a chimney cut his name."
Till about the year 1735 Mullinahac continued to be the town residence of
the Allen family, whose country seat was at Stillorgan, where is still to be
seen an obelisk erected by John, third Viscount Allen, with the object of
clearing his park of stones, and giving employment to the poor during the
hard frost of 1739. The Allen peerage became extinct in 1816, by the death
of the sixth Viscount, Joshua William Allen, who had served through the
Peninsular campaigns.
In the middle of the last century an extensive nunnery stood on the northern
side of Mullinahac, surrounded on the north and west by fields planted with
large trees. At the same period a Roman Catholic chapel was located at the
rere of the southern side of Mullinahac, and the "Corn Premium Office" was
held here till 1780.
"Allen's Court," Lord Allen's former residence in Mullinahac, came in 1770
into the occupation of Edward and John Byrne, sugar bakers and distillers.
Edward Byrne had been apprenticed to an eminent Roman Catholic trader named
Toole, who, becoming a convert to the Protestant religion, endeavoured to
induce his children and apprentice to follow his example. Byrne, however,
declined to renounce the Roman Catholic faith, and exhorted Toole's daughter
not to conform to the Established Church. Miss Toole, as before noticed,
sought refuge with Lawrence Saul, and her father obtained possession of her
correspondence with Byrne, against whom he instituted legal proceedings;
which, after a tedious protraction, terminated in favour of his apprentice,
who, after trading for some years, acquired the reputation of being the
wealthiest Roman Catholic merchant in Ireland, and was consequently induced
to enter into co-operation with the advocates of the repeal of the Penal
Laws. On the rejection of the petition of 1791, the claims of the Roman
Catholics were regarded as hopeless, owing to the discountenance which they
experienced from the nobility and gentry of their own religion; the
Committee was consequently about to dissolve, when John Keogh, at a meeting
of the "Select Committee," held in Allen's Court in 1791, proposed that a
member of that body should be delegated to lay their case before the English
Minister. "Every man, says Keogh, "refused to go upon so hopeless an errand,
and the meeting was actually breaking up, and about to disperse for ever,
when I, and I alone, offered to go to London, and at my own expense to
solicit an audience from ministers. All I required was the authority of
their permission; which I obtained; and I accordingly set out for the
British capital, where I remained for three months, and whence I returned to
this kingdom in January, 1792, accompanied, at my own desire, by the son of
that illustrious Irishman, Edmund Burke."
The duties paid annually by Byrne to the Revenue at this period were
calculated to amount to #100,000, and in recognition of his wealth and
mercantile importance, he was elected Chairman of the Roman Catholic
Committee, to the various publications of which his name was officially
appended. Byrne appears, however, not to have taken any prominent part in
politics after the partial relaxation of the Penal Laws in 1793, and at the
period of his death, in the early part of the present century, his property
was estimated at #400,000.

Walking through Meath - Click Me to Migrate - America

Andrew Chevers,	,John Chevers, Arthur Rogerson Esq;
Terence Geoghegan and John Geoghegan, and Mary his Wife, Executrix of	    	  	
His Majesty.s Attorney-General in Ireland,
Nicholas Netterville Esq: Deceased,

John Chevers of Turpanmore, Esq: being possessed of the lands of Lisnegrogy,
1656 Creganagrogy, Moyrish, Carrowmore, Caherhehernagh, Cahernefryery, Buncan,
Clonescarbery, and Blengasse, situate in the County of Galway, did by
indenture, dated the 22nd Day of June, 1656, Demise the premises (except the
lands of Blengasse) unto Edward, Lord Viscount Galmoy, and Walter Chevers,
Esq; for the Term of Ninety Nine Years, in Trust for Joan Chevers his Wife, 
and the Heirs Male of her Body by him begotten, at the yearly rent of
The said Lord Galmoy dyed, and the said Term vested in the said Walter
Chevers, as  1667 surviving Trustee, who at the Request and Nomination of 
the said Joan Chevers, did by his Deed, dated the 29th Day of January, 1667, 
assign the then Residue and Remainder of the said term unto John Sutton and 
John Wall,in Trust for such Person, or Persons as the said Joan Chevers should
The said John Chevers borrowed the Sum of 400L. of Nicholas Netterville, and
for   May, 1682
securing the Re-payment thereof, with interest after the Rate of Ten Pounds
per Cent Per nnum; he the said John Chevers, together with the said John
Sutton and John Wall the Trustees, the Appellant Andrew Chevers, and his
elder Brother Edward Chevers, did duly convey the said Lands of Lisnegrogy,
Creganagrogy, Moyrish and Blengasse to the said Nicholas Netterville and his
Heirs, subject to an indefinite Condition of Redemption, without any
prefix.d Time; and soon after the said John Chevers died, leaving issue
Edward Chevers, his eldest Son, (who since died without issue) the Appellant
Andrew his second Son, and the Appellant John his third Son. 
The said John Sutton surviving the said John Wall, made his last Will and
June 1697 
Testament in writing and thereof constituted his wife Mary Sutton and Henry
Loftus, Esq; Executors, who having proved said Will, did at the Request and
Nomination of the said Joan Chevers, by their Deed indented, dated on or
about the 16th Day of June 1697 grant and assign the then Residue and
Remainder of the said Term of 99 Years unto Christopher Chevers of
Ballynecasky in the County of Westmeath, Gent. and Andrew Crosby of Killyan
in the County of Galway, Gent.
By the death of the said John Chevers, and Edward Chevers his eldest son,
the Equity of Redemption of the said mortgaged lands descended  and came to
the Appellant Andrew Chevers, who hath continued in the quiet and peaceable
Possession of the said mortgaged Premises for near
Nineteen Years, and duly paid the Interest-Money; and the Appellants Andrew
and John have in like manner had constant and uninterrupted Possession of
the said demised Premises since their Mother.s Death which happened about 19
years ago. The said Nicholas Netterville, fearing least the said Mortgagers
or some of them might be forfeiting Persons, did exhibit a Cautionary Claim
before the late Trustees appointed for Sale of the Forfeited Estates in
Ireland,              August 1700
and thereby claimed the Benefit of the said Mortgage, and the said
Christopher Chevers and Andrew Crosby likewise claimed the Benefit of the
said Term of 99 Years; and the said Trustees took upon them to sell the
Reversion of the said demised Premises, and the Equity of Redemption of the
said mortgaged Lands, as the forfeited Estate of Christopher Chevers of
Killyan, commonly called Lord Mount-Leinster, on a Presumption, that the
said Edward Chevers (Brother of the Appellants Andrew and John ) was
lawfully Out-Lawed in the year 1696, by the Name of Christopher, or was
intended to be Out-Lawed, tho. in Reality there was no such Person as
Christopher Chevers called Lord Mount-Leinster.
The Respondent, Terence Geoghegan, (who had been Agent and Solicitor for the
said Christopher 
Chevers and Andrew Crosby in getting their said Claim allowed) exhibited his
Bill in the Court of Exchequer in Ireland, against the Appellants Andrew
Chevers and John 
Chevers, the said Nicholas Netterville and Others, thereby setting forth
that the said Trustees had
sold the Equity of Redemption of the said mortgaged lands, and the
Reversion of the said demised Premises unto the Governor and Reversion
Bill Filed
of the said demised Premises unto the Governor and Company for making Hollow
Sword-Blades in England, as the Forfeiture of ----Chevers of Killyan,
commonly called Lord 
Mount-Leinster, and that he the said Geoghegan had purchased the same from
the said Corporation;
and further setting forth, that he had applied to the Appellant John Chevers
for an Account of the
Rents and Profits of the said demised Premises, and also to the said
Nicholas Netterville for an 
Account touching the said Mortgage, and by his Bill relied on the Statute
made in Great Britain in
the Sixth Year of the Reign of Queen Anne in favour of the said Corporation,
and other Purchasers
of forfeited Estates, and to be relieved was the Scope of the Bill.

20th March 1710. Answer
To which Bill the Appellants Andrew Chevers and John Chevers, and the other
Defendants put in
their Answers, and insisted on the Title herein before set forth, and
severally said. They did not
believe that the said Trustees, or any deriving under them, ever had any
Title to, or Possession of
the Premises, or any Part thereof; and insisted, that they having been all
along in Possession, they 
could not now be affected by the said Statute made in the Sixth Year of the
late Queen, there being
an express Proviso, that it should not extend to prejudice the Right or
Title, of any Person that
was in actual Possession at the Time of making the said Act, which was the
Appellant.s Case; and 
also insisted, that the said Edward Chevers, the eldest Son and Heir of the
said John Chevers of 
Turpanmore was not a forfeiting Person, and was not then attainted or
out-lawed, and referred 
themselves therein to the Record of such Out-lawry or Attainder, if any
there was, and to the 
Judgement of the Court thereupon.
Pending the said Suit, an Indictment of Foreign Treason was found by the
Grand-Jury of the County of Dublin, against one Edward Chevers of Killyan in
the County of
Galway, Esq; commonly called Lord Mount-Leinster, on the information of the
Geoghegan, who swore, he believed the said Edward was in France, in Arms
against Her Late 
Majesty Queen Anne, and thereupon by his Procurement a Capias was awarded in
Hilary Term,
1710, against the said Edward Chevers returnable Quind Paschae following;
and tho. the said
Edward Chevers died before the return of the said Writ of Capia yet an
Exigent was awarded
against him in Easter term 1712, and it is pretended that he was thereupon
out-lawed in October
following; however the Respondent Geoghegan did not think fit to insist
upon, or make any use of
the said latter pretended  Out-lawry, but the said Cause being at issue, he
in May 1717 examined
some Witnesses to prove, that the Gentlemen of the Grand Inquest, who found
the Bill of
Indictment against Christopher Chevers, commonly called Lord Mount-Leinster,
in 1696, 
Intended to indict the Person who was the eldest Son and Heir of the said
John Chevers of
Turpanmore, by his wife Joan  tho. his Christian Name might have been
mistaken in the Record.

Several Hearings in 1713, 1714, 1715.
The Cause came on to be heard the 20th Day of February, 1713, and the
Respondent Geoghegan
then produced an Out-lawry of High-Treason, promulged in the Year 1696
against Christopher 
Chevers late of Killyan in the County of Galway, commonly called Lord
Mount-Leinster, and
would have had the Court presume that it was against Edward Chevers the
elder Brother of the
Appellants Andrew and John, tho. there was no Pro-in the Cause to ground
such a Presumption
upon; and the Appellants by their Council insisted that the Respondent
Geoghegan had not shown
that the said Christopher Chevers, the out-lawed Person, ever had any
Estate, Right, Title, or
Interest whatsoever in or - the said Lands in question, and therefore prayed
that his Bill should be
dismissed, which the said Court on that and several other Hearings in the
Years 1714 and 1715, 
absolute refuted.

 19 Feb.1716 Further Hearings
But the said Cause coming on to be further heard on the 19th of February,
1716 the said Court then
ordered that the Plaintiff in the said Cause should enter on the Land in
question by himself or his
Attorney, and that the Appellant Andrew Chevers should then make a Lease on
the said Lands, and
that the Respondent Geoghegan should enter upon him, and then the Leasee
should bring an
Ejectment on that Entry; that the Cause should be tried at the Bar of the
said Court of Exchequer
on the third Friday in the next Term and if the Appellant Andrew Chevers did
not try it , that it
should be taken pro confesso that the Name of the eldest Son of the said
John Chevers was
Christopher; and if there were any Default in the said Respondent Geoghegan,
it should be taken
pro confesso, that the Name of such eldest Son was Edward. 

19th July, 1717, Rehearing denyed.
The Appellant, Andrew Chevers, being advised that the Directions given by
the said last mentioned
Order were improper, in regard he was thereby to admit, against Truth that
he was out of 
Possession, and the Respondent Geoghegan was in Consequence thereof left at
Liberty to set up the
said irregular Out-lawry of 1712, against the Appellant Andrew, tho. it made
no Title for the
Respondent, and could have been of no avail to him in an Ejectment brought
on his Demise, the
Appellant Andrew did therefore pray a  Re-hearing which was refused, altho.
two of his Council
Certified under their Hands that there was just Grounds to have the Cause

7th December 1717, Further Hearing
The Court being sensible, that the Tryal directed by the said Order of the
19th of February, 1716,
was contrary to the usual Courte, did not think fit to enforce the Execution
thereof, but on the
27th November, 1717, ordered, that the said Cause should be set down to be
heard, and accordingly
the Cause came on to be heard the 7th Day of December, 1717, when the Record
of the said other
pretended Out-lawry in 1712 was produced by the Respondent Geoghegan, and
read, whereupon
the Court was pleased to declare, That the Out-lawry then produced, shewed
the Title to be in the
Crown, rather than in the Respondent Geoghegan; but the Court nevertheless
at the same time,
ordered that the Respondent Geoghegan should be at liberty to amend his
Bill, by making his
Majesty.s Attorney General, or such other of his Majesty.s Council as he
should be advised, a party

4th November 1718, Amended Bill.
By virtue of which last-mentioned Order, the Respondent Geoghegan amended
his Bill by setting
forth therein these further Matters, (viz.) That by virtue of a Commission
issued under the Great
Seal of Ireland in January 1710, the Lord Mount-Leinster was indicted in the
County of Dublin, by
the Name of  Edward Chevers late of Killyan in the County of Galway,
commonly called Edward
Lord Mount-Leinster, for Foreign Treason committed against Her  late Majesty
Queen Anne, and
that in the Year 1712 he was out-lawed thereupon, whereby the Defect in the
former Out-lawry by
the Name of Christopher was supplied, and in regard the eldest Son of John
Chevers was the person
intended to be Out-lawed in 1696, he insisted that the subsequent Out-lawry
in 1712 should be
deemed to enure, and be in Truth, and for the Benefit of him the said
Respondent Geoghegan, so far
as to Corroborate and strengthen his said Purchase under the Trustees for
Sale of the Irish
Forfeitures; and to the end that he might have Equity decreed to him against
the King, he prayed the
usual Order or Process, requiring his Majesty.s Attorney or
Solicitor-General to answer the said
amended Bill.  
John Rogerson, Esq; his Majesty.s then Solicitor-General in Ireland,
immediately put in an Answer
to the said amended Bill, and thereupon it was ordered the 6th of November,
1718, that the said
cause should be heard on Bill and Answer, as to Mr. Solicitor-General the
fourth Hearing-day in
that Term, and should be then further heard as to the rest of the
Defendants; but on the 10th
February, 1718, it was ordered, That the Solicitor-General should be at
Liberty to take his said
Answer off the File, and to amend the same, which was accordingly done; and
on the 20th of
February, 1718, the said Solicitor-General filed his amended Answer, and on
his Majesty.s Behalf
he thereby said, he believed the said John Chevers late of Turpanmore
deceased, left three Sons, as
Per Bill,(viz.)                  Chevers late of Killyan, Esq; commonly
called Lord Mount-Leinster, his
eldest Son and the Appellants Andrew and John; and also believed, that the
said Person, commonly
called Lord Mount-Leinster was Out-lawed for High-Treason in Three Counties
in that Kingdom,
on account of the late Rebellion, and that by virtue of a Commission issued
in January1710, he was
indicted in the County of Dublin, by the Name of Edward Chevers of Killyan
in the County of
Galway, commonly called Lord Mount-Leinster, for Foreign Treason by him
committed against Her
Late Majesty Queen Anne, and was in the Year 1712 out-lawed thereupon, and
referred himself to
the Records of the said Out-lawries; and further said, he conceived if any
Defect should appear in
any of the former Attainder.s, by reason of any Misnomer of the Christian
Name of the said
Chevers, commonly called Lord Mount-Leinster, then the aforesaid Attainder
of Foreign Treason in 
the Year 1712 ought to be applied in aid of the said Plaintiff.s Purchase;
and conceived, it was 
reasonable the Plaintiff should not be deprived of the Benefit of his
Purchase, upon the Mistake of
the Christian Name of the said Chevers, commonly called Lord Mount-Leinster,
who appeared to be 
the Person intended to be out-lawed.
The said answer was the more surprising to the Appellants, for that by a
Report made in August
1717, on the Order of Reference from His Majesty, granted on the humble
Petition of the Appellant
Andrew, praying Leave to sue out a Writ of Error for Reversing the Out-lawry
in 1712. It was
Certified, .That by reason of the Mistake of the Christian Name of the
Person Called Lord Mount
-Leinster, the said Estate was never vested in the Trustees for Sale of the
Irish Forfeitures, and that
consequently the sale made by the said Trustees to the Corporation for
making hollow Sword
-Blades, and that made bt the said Corporation to the Respondent Geoghegan
were void,. as by the
said Report, now remaining in the Office of one of his Majesty.s Principal
Secretaries of State, may

22nd January, 1718. Bill of Revivor
The said Respondent Terence Geoghegan brought his Bill of Revivor, setting
forth, that he had
received information, that the said Nicholas Netterville was dead, (without
mentioning the Time of
his Death) and was informed that Patrick Neterville was his Son and Heir,
and that the Appellant
Mary was his Executrix or Administratrix, and was married to the Appellant
Arthur Geoghegan;
and therefore he prayed, that the Proceedings in the said Cause should stand
revived against them,
and by an Order made the 29th Day of January, 1718, the said Cause was
revived against the
Appellants Arthur and Mary and on the 14th Day of February the said Cause
was ordered to be
revived  against the said Patrick Netterville, and Tho. no Process was ever
awarded, nor any Order
was ever made requiring the Appellants or the said Nicholas Netterville to
answer the new Matter 
inserted in the said amended Bill, or to declare whether they should abide
by their former Answers;
yet on the 14th Day of February, 1718, it was ordered, That the said Cause
should be set down to be
heard on the sixth of the then next Sitting-days, and the same accordingly
standing in the Paper to
be heard, was, with other Causes, adjourned over to the Easter-Term then
next following.

30th April,1719, Decretal Order.
 The said Cause was brought to a hearing the 30th April, 1719, without
serving the Appellants, or
 any of them, with Process to hear Judgement, and on reading the said
Solicitor-General.s Answer,
it was ordered by the said Court, That the Respondent Geoghegan should be at
Liberty to redeem
the said mortgaged Premises, and that it should be referred to the chief
Remembrancer to state the
Account on the said Mortgage, and that on Payment of what should appear to
be due, the said
Patrick Netterville, and the Appellants Arthur and Mary, should assign and
convey the said
Mortgage to the Respondent Geoghegan, and that the Appellant Andrew should
Account with the
Respondent Geoghegan for the full improved Issues and Profits of  the said
Lands of Blengasse,
since the said Trustees Sale; and that the Appellants  Andrew and John
should account for the
Arrears of the 10L per Annum since the same Sale, and that the Respondent,
Geoghegan should by
the Injunction of that Court be forthwith put into the actual Possession of
the Lands of Blengasse,
with the Appurtenances, Part of the said mortgaged Lands not comprised in
the Lease, and should
after the Redemption of the said mortgaged Premises be put into the actual
Possession and Receipt
of the said 10L per Annum reserved on the said Lease, and that the
Respondent Geoghegan should
have and recover all and singular the said Lands, and the Rents and
Reversion thereof  under the
Rules aforesaid; and that the Respondent Geoghegan should have and recover
against the
Appellants Andrew and John, his Costs expended in the said Cause; and the
Respondent Geoghegan
was soon after put into Possession of the Lands of Blengasse, by virtue of
an Injunction grounded
on the said Decree, tho. the Money due to the Appellants Arthur and Mary on
the said Mortgage is
not yet paid or satisfied,  and afterwards the said Decree or Decretal Order
was irregularly inrolled,
without serving the Appellants or any Attorney or Agent concerned for them,
or any of them, with
the Draught of the said Order.

24th  November 1719.
The Appellants by their Council moved the said Court, to set aside the said
Inrollment for the said
Irregularity, and also to set aside the said Decretal Order made on the
Hearing the said 30th of April,
1719 for that the said Cause was irregularly brought on to a Hearing against
the Appellants Andrew
and John who never answered the said amended Bill, and had no Opportunity to
controvert the
new Matters therein set forth; and for that the Appellants Arthur and Mary
were not brought
before the Court after the said Revivor, and were never served with a
Subpoena ad faciend.
attornat. in the said Cause, yet the Court absolutely refused to set aside
the said Inrollment, or
the said Decretal Order of the 30th of April last.

9th of December,1719
The Respondent Geoghegan moved the Court, that he might be quieted in the
Possession of
Blengass, Part of the said mortgaged Premises, against Distresses to be made
by the said Patrick
Netterville or the Appellants Arthur and Mary; and tho. it was urged on
their Behalf, that until
the Account was take and certified by the Officer, and until Satisfaction
was made to them for
what was due for Principal, Interest and Costs, the Respondent ought not to
be quieted in the
Possession of any Part of the mortgage Premises; yet the said Court did on
the 9th Day of
December, 1719, order the Appellants Arthur and Mary to make an Affidavit of
what was due
for Principal and Interest, and that the Respondent Geoghegan should make
the same into Court
subject to an Account, and thereupon be quieted in the possession of
Blengasse against Distress,
until the Account be stated before the Officer.
The said Appellants being advised, that the said several Orders and Decrees,
and particularly the
said Orders of the 19th of February 1716, 19th July 1717, 7th December 1717,
6th November
1718, 14th February 1718, and the Decretal Order of the 30th Spril 1719, and
the Inrollment of 
the same Order, the said Order made on the 24th of November 1719, and the
Order of the 9th of
December 1719, are erroneous, have appealed to your Lordships for these
(among many other)
1.	For that it did not appear to the Court, on the Hearing in February
1713, or on any other 
of the subsequent Hearings in 1714, 1715, 1716, that the Respondent
Geoghegan had any Right or Title to the Premises, and therefore no Tryal
ought have been ordered in the Manner directed by the said Order of the 19th
of February 1716, but the Plaintiff.s original Bill ought to have been
dismissed with Costs.
11.	For that by the Statute of the 11th and 12th of his late Majesty
King William the third, for 
Sale of the Forfeited Estates and Interests in Ireland, no Lands were to be
vested in the Trustees therein named by reason of any  Out-lawry, but the
Estates of Persons out-lawed before the last Day of Trinity Term, 1701. And
it was thereby expressly enacted, That for Encouragement  of Industry, no
Person or Persons whatsoever should at any time after the said last Day of
Trinity Term 1701, be Tried, Prosecuted, Indicted or Tried for any
High-Treason by him or them committed during the late Rebellion in Ireland;
and therefore the said pretended Out-lawry in the Year 1712, which was
produced by the Respondent Geoghegan on the 7th of December 1717, could not
mend his Title, or give him any better Right than he had before and
consequently the said Respondent Geoghegan ought not on that Pretence to
have had Liberty to amend his Bill; but the Court, on producing the said
last mentioned pretended Out-lawry, ought, as the Appellants humbly
apprehend, to have dismissed the Respondent Geoghegan.s original Bill with
111. For that the new Matter suggested by the Respondent Geoghegan.s amended
Bill did not, as the Appellants humbly apprehend, give him any Title either
in Law or Equity, nor ought the Appellants to have been concluded or
prejudiced in any respect by the Consession or Admission of his Majesty.s
Solicitor-General, who was only a Defendant with them in the Cause, and
therefore the said Decretal Order of the 30th April 1719 ought not to have
been made, but the Respondent.s amended Bill ought to have been dismissed.
1V. For that the new Matter suggested by the Respondent in his said amended
Bill, as the Appellants humbly apprehend, are foreign and repugnant to the
Title pretended by him in his original Bill, and do not tend to strengthen
or corroborate the same, and therefore the Appellants ought to have had an
Opportunity to defend their Title and Possession against these new
V.  For that the Appellants Arthur and Mary were never properly in Court,
and were never served with a Subpoena ad faciend. attornat. in the said
Cause, nor were any of the Appellants served with Process to hear Judgement
after the filing of the said amended Bill, or said Bill of Revivor; so that
the said Cause was not well brought on to a Hearing against any of the
Appellants on the said 30th of April 1719.
V1. For that by the constant and established Rules of the said Court, the
Draught of a Decree or Decretal Order before the Inrollment thereof, ought
to be delivered to the adverse Party or his Attorneys who are in Eight Days
to return the same signed by the Council of that Side, or to make Objection
to the Draught, which has not been observed in this Case.
V11 For that the Respondent has been put into Possession of Part of the said
mortgaged Premises before Satisfaction was made to the Representatives of
the Mortgagee, and before any Account was stated of what was due on the
Mortgage for Principal, Interest and Costs; and the Appellants Andrew and
John are to account with the Respondent from the Time of the Trustees Sale,
tho. the said Sale was null and void and nothing passed thereby.

Wherefore and for other Reasons, the said Appellants humbly insist, that the
said several Orders and Decrees are Erroneous, and humbly hope that the same
shall be Reversed, and that the said Respondent.s original Bill and amended
Bill shall be dismissed with Costs.

						SAM. MEAD

	Judgement 7th and 23rd March. 1720

March, 1720

CHAPTER VIII. Of The Chancellors Of Ireland During The Wars Of The Roses. The Wars of the Roses, which deluged England with the blood of the noblest and bravest of her sons, involved Ireland to a very considerable extent Henry VI nominated successive Chancellors for Ireland since the time Archbishop Talbot held the Seals. Master Thomas Chase [Pat. 1441, Rot. Cl. 20 Henry VI. C. R 24.] was appointed Lord Chancellor in 1441 He held office for five years, and was succeeded by an ecclesiastic named Richard Wogan [Pat. 1446.] in 1446, who held the Seal when Richard Duke of York became Viceroy of Ireland; William Chevers was his deputy or Vice-Chancellor. Ireland has had so little of the sunshine of Royal favour, and the career of the Duke of York as Viceroy was so exceedingly creditable to his memory, I very willingly devote more space to the life of his son, the Earl of Rutland, infant Chancellor of Ireland (who, of course, was Chancellor only in name), than otherwise I would feel justified in doing. Edmund Plantagenet, Earl of Rutland, Lord Chancellor of Ireland, descended paternally from Edward of Langley, youngest son of King Edward II. He was born at Rouen in the year 1443, and besides his English, had an Irish title - Earl of Cork. His father was Richard Duke of York; and his mother, Lady Cecilia Neville, daughter of Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmoreland. From this lady's extreme beauty she was generally called 'the Rose of Raby,' and two of her sons ascended to the throne under the titles of Edward IV. and Richard III. In 1449, Richard Duke of York was appointed Viceroy of Ireland, and, accompanied by the Duchess and his children, landed at Howth (for many centuries the chief port of Dublin) on the 14th of July of that year. He gave early indications of a better policy towards the Irish than was usually observed. Instead of attacking the native chiefs, as was the usual practice of lately appointed deputies to show their activity, the Duke employed the arts of peace, and soon contracted 'most friendly relations with Maginnis of Iveagh, MacMahon of Farney, MacArtan, O'Reilly, and other Irish noblemen. He brought the turbulent Wicklow clan of O'Byrne to subjection. This chief engaged to permit the laws of England to be observed in his district; that he, his wife, and family should wear the English dress and learn the English language. The reputation for gentle ruling which the Duke gained, in a short time caused the popular belief 'that the wildest Irishman in Ireland would, before twelve months, be sworn English.' On the birth of his son, George of York, Duke of Clarence, in Dublin Castle, on October 12, 1449, the policy of the Viceroy was manifested; for, knowing the tie of gossipred was regarded as very binding in Ireland, he procured the chiefs of the rival families - Geraldine of Desmond and Butler of Ormond - to be the sponsors at the font. This politic and propitiatory conduct of the Duke of York succeeded in endearing himself and his family, not only to the English in Ireland, but also to the natives, ever grateful for kindness. Meantime the great party who regarded him as their head in England were dissatisfied at his absence, and looked on his protracted stay in Ireland as though it were an exile, if not banishment. The surrender of Caen to the French, despite the remonstrance of the Governor of that town, Sir Davy Hall, who was appointed by its English owner, the Duke of York, also much displeased the Yorkists. The rebellion of Jack Cade, and more especially the nonpayment of the vice-regal allowance, caused very serious embarrassment to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Some English rebels and Irish enemies taking advantage of the state of affairs, and the few men at the Viceroy's disposal, attacked his Meath estates, burned Rathmore and some adjacent villages, and caused him to send an urgent letter to the King as well as to his brother-in-law, the Earl of Salisbury, requesting prompt assistance. In this letter he says, 'I write at this time unto the King's Highness, and beseech his good grace for to hasten my payment for this land, according to his letters of warrant, and late directed unto the Treasurer of England, to the intent I may wage men in sufficient number, for to resist the malice of the same enemies, and punish them in such wise, that other which would do the same, for lack of resistance in time, may take example; for doubtless, but if my payment be not had in haste, for to have men of war in defence and safeguard of this land, my power cannot stretch to keep it in the King's obeisance. And very necessity will compel me to come into England to live there upon my poor livelihood, for I had liever be dead than any inconvenience should fall thereunto in my default; for it shall never be chronicled, nor remain in scripture by the grace of God, that Ireland was lost by my negligence. Therefore I beseech you, right worshipful brother, that you will hold to your hands instantly, that any payment may be had at this time in eschewing all inconveniences, for I have example in other places, more pity it is for to dread shame, and for to acquit my truth unto the King's Highness as my duty.' [Hollinshed's Chron. Ir., vol. vi. p. 267.] I cannot say what answer was given to this pressing letter, but infer no money was forwarded, for the Duke declared 'that, for lack of payment of his wages, he was compelled to sell much of his substance, to pledge his plate and great jewels, and borrow from most of his friends.' He returned to England in 1450, and found that country torn by civil broils. He left as his deputy in Ireland Sir James Butler, eldest son of the Earl of Ormond. He was not long absent; on the breaking up of the Yorkist camp at Ludlow, in Shropshire, the Duke, accompanied by his son and Chancellor, Edmund Earl of Rutland, sailed from Wales for Ireland, where he was enthusiastically received by the chiefs of the Geraldines, the Earls of Kildare and Desmond, who expressed their joy at his arrival again in Ireland. His coming also rejoiced the Anglo-Irish of his lordship of Meath, 'whose hearts,' says the historian, 'he had exceedingly tied unto him.' While the Lancastrian party were pillaging and destroying the Yorkists in England, the Irish Parliament formally upheld the authority of the Duke as Viceroy, and established a Mint in his castle at Trim. They likewise ratified the appointment of his son Edmund as Chancellor of Ireland. At this period the Irish Parliament first asserted its independence. Mr. Gilbert, in his History of the Viceroys of Ireland, [Page 369.] states: 'Stimulated by the presence and position of the Duke, the Parliament publicly enunciated the independence of the legislature in Ireland, and affirmed rights which had hitherto been suffered to lie in abeyance owing to the relations of the colonists with England. Having asserted the right of the King's subjects in Ireland to their own coinage, distinct from that of England, the Parliament formally declared, that as Normandy and Guienne, when under the obedience of England, were separate from its laws and statutes, so also in Ireland, though under the obedience of the same realm, was nevertheless separate from its laws and statutes, except such as were by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons of Ireland, freely admitted and accepted in their Parliaments and Great Councils.' [Rot Stat. Hib. 38 Hen. VI] In further vindication of independent rights, the Parliament declared, that according to ancient prescription, the King's subjects in Ireland were not bound to answer writs except those under the Great Seal of Ireland; and that any officer attempting to put decrees from England into force in Ireland, should incur forfeiture of all his Irish property, and be fined one thousand marks. It was also ordained, that every appeal of treason in Ireland should be determined solely in the Court of the Constable and Marshal of Ireland; that death should be inflicted on those who groundlessly accused others of treason there; and that no pardon should avail in such cases. This Parliament also enacted that, while the Duke of York, as Lieutenant, resided in Ireland, any man who, directly or indirectly, sought to compass his death, or to provoke rebellion or disobedience towards him, should stand attainted of high treason against the King's person. This stringent enactment was rigidly enforced. The Lancastrian party, then in the ascendant, wished to remove the Chancellor's father from the Viceroyalty of Ireland, and resolved to make him a prisoner. They despatched a squire of the Earl of Ormond, named Overy, with a writ for the Duke's apprehension, on the grounds of his being an attainted traitor in open rebellion against the King, and illegally claiming to be his Viceroy in Ireland. They little counted on the fate in store for their messenger. Overy was himself made prisoner, tried under the recent penal statute, found guilty of high treason, and suffered the ignominious death of a traitor. He was hanged, drawn, and quartered. This attempt against the person of the Viceroy being signally defeated, an effort was next made to create an Irish party hostile to him, and as the Geraldines sided with the White Rose of York, the powerful influence of the House of Ormond was enlisted on behalf of the Lancastrians. The King, Henry VI., was induced to write letters, under his Privy Seal, to various Irish chiefs, who were usually ranked as Irish enemies, and these letters were forwarded to the Duke of York; but all was of no avail, the Duke, as stated by Hall, [Union of Two Noble Houses, 1548.] 'got him such love and favour of the country and the inhabitants, that their sincere love and friendly affection could never be separated from him and his lineage.' Poets, as well as prose writers, attested the success of his Irish administration. In the 'Mirrour for Magistrates ' [Vol ii. p. 189.] he is made to state:- 'I twice bare rule in Normandy and France, And last Lieutenant in Ireland, where my hart Found remedy for every kind of smart; For through the love my doings there did breede, I had their helps at all times in my needs.' The Duke and his son, the Lord Chancellor, attracted to their side the powerful nobles of the Geraldine party, which, as I have already observed, caused the Ormond party, their hereditary opponents, to side with the opponents of the White Rose. The Earls of Kildare and Desmond, the heads of the Fitz Geralds, with the Prestons, and Barnewalls, secured to the Duke the Government of Ireland despite the power of the potent Butlers, the influence of the Crown and Parliament of England. Meanwhile the Duke's eldest son, afterwards Edward IV., and his nephew, Richard Earl of Warwick, held possession of Calais. Thence occurred Lord Warwick's hasty visit to Ireland narrated by Samuel Daniel:- [Poetical works of S. Daniel, Lond. 1718, vol. ii. p. 231.] Where shipping and provisions Warwick takes For Ireland, with his chieftain to confer; And within thirty days this voyage makes, And back returns ere known to have been there: So that the heavens, the sea, the wind partakes With him, as if they of his faction were; Or that his spirit and valour were combined With destiny, t'effect what he designed. The fortunes of the Yorkists were again in the ascendant. They defeated the King's forces at Northampton, made King Henry prisoner, and obtained possession of London. This news was quickly communicated to the Viceroy of Ireland, who, accompanied by the Lord Chancellor, started for England, leaving the Earl of Kildare his deputy. On his arrival in London he was received with enthusiasm, solemnly proclaimed heir to the Crown, and Protector of the realm. Alas! the Protector soon stood in need of protection. Within a month be was besieged in his Castle of Sandal, near Wakefield, by Queen Margaret at the head of a powerful army, superior by four to one to the forces of the Duke. Notwithstanding this immense majority, the Duke of York was resolved to try the fortune of battle, but Sir Davy Hall, his old comrade in arms, his faithful servant and counsellor, tried to dissuade him. He advised the Duke to have a little patience, for succour would swiftly come, that Prince Edward with his March men and the Welsh troops were on the road towards him. Yet the impetuous Duke would not be counselled, but replied with much vehemence, 'Ah, Davy! Davy! hast thou loved me so long, and now wouldst have me dishonoured. Thou never saw me keep fortress when I was Regent in Normandy, when the Dauphin himself with his puissance, came to besiege me, but like a man, and not like a bird included in a cage, I issued and fought with mine enemies to their loss, ever, I thank God, and to mine honour. If I have not kept myself within walls for fear of a great and strong Prince, nor hid my face from any man living, wouldst thou that I, for dread of a scolding woman, should incarcerate myself and shut my gates; then all men might of me wonder, and all creatures might of me report dishonour, a woman hath made me a dastard, whom no man ever to this day could yet prove a coward. My mind is rather to die with honour than to live with shame. Their great number shall not appal my spirits, but encourage them; for surely I think that I have there as many friends as enemies, which, at joining, will either fly or take my part. Therefore advance my banner in, the name of God and St. George, for surely I will fight with them, though I should fight alone.'' This valorous speech was more indicative of the chivalry of a knight-errant than the wisdom of a prudent general. For five thousand men to leave a strong fortress and engage twenty thousand on the open plain, could only be regarded as the height of rashness. Besides Sir Davy Hall, the Earl of Salisbury and other prudent counsellors advised the Duke to remain in the fortress until his son, who was levying forces on the borders of Wales, would advance to his assistance. [Hume's History of England, vol. iii, p. 04.] All was urged in vain, the Duke vowed he would fight, though he should fight alone, and with heavy hearts the gallant little band resolved to perish with him. There was, indeed, the chance which he had glanced at in his speech of numbering friends in Queen Margaret's camp, who, in the hour of need, would either join him or draw away from the battle. On the eve of Christmas, December 24, 1460, the Duke's army marched out of the castle and offered the Lancastrians battle. By the side of the Duke fought his second son, the young Chancellor of Ireland, whose years had not past their teens, but who, under a fair and almost effeminate appearance, carried a brave and intrepid spirit. The forces of the Queen resolved to annihilate their audacious foes, and soon the Duke found how little reason be had to 'hope of finding friends in the camp of Queen Margaret. The historian Hume says, [Ibid.] 'the great inequality of numbers was sufficient alone to decide the victory, but the Queen, by sending a detachment, who fell on the back of the Duke's army, rendered her advantage still more certain and undisputed. The Duke himself was killed in the action; and when his body was found among the slain the head was cut off by Margaret's orders and fixed on the gates of York, with a paper crown upon it, in derision of his pretended title.' The fate of the young Chancellor was soon over. Urged by his tutor, a priest named Robert Aspell, he was no sooner aware that the field was lost than he sought safety by flight. Their movements were intercepted by the Lancastrians, and Lord Clifford made him prisoner, but did not then know his rank. Struck with the richness of his armour and equipment, Lord Clifford demanded his name. 'Save him,' implored the Chaplain; 'for he is the Prince's son, and peradventure may do you good hereafter.' This was au impolitic appeal, for it denoted hopes of the House of York being again in the ascendant, which the Lancastrians, flushed with recent victory, regarded as impossible. The ruthless noble swore a solemn oath:- 'Thy father,' said he, 'slew mine; and so will I do thee and all thy kin;' and with these words be rushed on the hapless youth, and drove his dagger to the hilt in his heart. Thus fell, at the early age of seventeen, Edmund Plantagenet, Earl of Rutland, Lord Chancellor of Ireland. While these deplorable events were taking place, the duties of Chancellor of Ireland were performed by deputy, and that deputy was Edmund Goldhall, or Ouldhall, who is named in the Liber Munerum Publicorum Hiberniae as Chancellor, in 1451. [Part ii. p. 202. This is the date assigned for the appointment of the young Earl of Rutland.] He is enumerated among the Bishops of Meath, [Ware's Bishops.] and was brother of Sir William Ouldhall, Chamberlain to Richard Duke of York, who probably recommended him as the most eligible person to be Vice-Chancellor to the Duke's son. He held the Great Seal for three years, and was succeeded, in 1454, by Sir John Talbot, son and heir of John Earl of Shrewsbury, and nephew of the Chancellor Talbot, whose 'Life' I have so fully given. Sir John held the Seal for six years, until 1460, when John Dynham, Esq., had the Great Seal. This Chancellor appointed Sir Robert Preston, Lord Gormanton, his Deputy Chancellor. This arrangement did not long endure. The following year the King sent a praecipe, dated at Bristol, 1461, to Thomas Fitz Morice, Earl of Kildare; Sir Robert Preston, Sir Christopher St. Lawrence; Sir Rowland Fitz Eustace, Sir Nicholas Barnewall, Chief Justice of the King's Bench; Sir Robert Dowedale, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas; Sir Thomas Plunkett, and others, his liege people, signifying them that he sent over for Ireland a new Great Seal, by Sir William Welles, Knight, Lord Chancellor of Ireland and enjoining them to obey the said Chancellor, whom he had sworn into office before himself in Chancery, at Westminster, and to make use of that Seal, and no other. And that all grants under any other Seal, from the first day of his reign, should be vacated, and of no force, which, by the tenor of this writ or preacipe, be cancelled. [Lib. Munerum Pub. Hib., Part ii. p. 203.] This Sir William was son of Lionel Lord Welles, and had his appointment for life confirmed by Act of Parliament [2 Edward IV.] but he only held it one year, when he was succeeded by a nobleman whose career is very tragical, John Tiptoft, Earl of Worcester, Lord Chancellor of Ireland. The ancestor of John Tiptoft, or Tibetot, Earl of Worcester, had claims upon the manors of Inchiquin and Youghal, part of the extensive territories of the Fitz Geralds of Desmond. He was of illustrious descent, nearly related to King Edward IV., and possessed of ample fortune, was well fitted to occupy a high place in the public gaze. How he fulfilled the promise of his youth we learn as we proceed. The University destined to mature the capacity of the future Chancellor of Ireland, was Oxford; and the classic College of Baliol is associated with his name. The place whence he derived his title, in the humorous lay of the 'Oxford Commemoration,' is described as not far distant from the celebrated University. In the words of the lively writer - From legendary Christchurch, Where booms the far-famed bell, Reared by the hand of Wolsey, But when I cannot tell; From classic quads of Baliol, Whence third-floor men descry, The smoky roofs of Worcester, Fringing the western sky, the young Earl received stores of knowledge.. The youthful student was no idle one: this may be inferred from the incident recorded, that while on his travels to Jerusalem, having visited the Holy Father in Rome (the Pope was then the learned Aeneas Silvius, Pius II.), he delivered a Latin oration of such pathos that he moved the Pope to tears. The Earl's reputation for learning caused him to be regarded as the most accomplished English nobleman of his day. When he became an adherent of the House of York, his talents were sure to put him into high offices. He was accordingly appointed Justice of North Wales, Treasurer and Constable of England, Chancellor during life for Ireland, and Steward of the King's Household. The impossibility of one man filling so many offices, unless by deputy, is apparent, so, as in duty bound, I follow his fortunes in Ireland, of which he was nominally Chancellor. He landed at Howth, in 1467, escorted by a strong military force. Beside the offices I have enumerated, he was Deputy-Governor of Ireland, under the Duke of Clarence, then Viceroy. Shortly after his arrival he assembled a Parliament, and this legislative body proceeded at once to attaint the Earls of Kildare and Desmond, also Edward Plunkett, for treason. This was a most ungrateful return for the support which those noblemen had given the York party. The grounds for their impeachment were ostensibly alliances and fosterage with the King's Irish enemies. Other breaches of the statute of Kilkenny were also charged in furnishing the said enemies with horses and armour, and supporting them against the loyal subjects of the King. The penalties of the statute were pressed most severely against the Earl of Desmond; his estates were declared confiscated, and, on February 14, 1467, the Earl, by the command of the Earl of Worcester, was beheaded at Drogheda. The real cause of this severity is probably that given by tradition. Desmond was greatly beloved by King Edward IV. on account of his prowess in the field, and for having fought no less than nine battles against the Lancastrians. The King listened with attention to his counsels, and asked his advice as to his future conduct on the throne. The Earl strongly recommended his Majesty's strengthening, his position by an alliance with a foreign princess; and when the King disclosed his marriage with the widow. of Sir John Grey, of Groby, Desmond replied, 'that he might obtain a divorce.' The King refused to adopt this course, but on an occasion of some connubial dissension with the Queen, imprudently communicated to her the advice he had received; saying to her Majesty, 'her pride would be humbled, had he taken the advice of his cousin of Desmond.' Woe betide the man who comes between husband and wife. The beautiful Queen Elizabeth took these words to heart, and when their little quarrel was made up exerted those fascinations which secured her the Crown, and which the amorous King was unable to resist, to learn the exact words Desmond used. The consequence was fatal to the Earl. The Queen enlisted the services of Worcester in her design to be revenged on this unfortunate Lord. At her instigation, Worcester was sent to supplant Desmond as Deputy for Ireland; and by assembling the Parliament at Drogheda, remote from the province of Munster, the portion of Ireland in which Desmond's power and influence lay, caused him to be attainted and executed. Irish historians describe Desmond as excelling in personal grace and intellect most men of his time. At the period of his execution he was but forty-two years of age, and no praise bestowed on, him exceeded his merits. They added that Erin suffered deeply by his death, the sorrow and affliction for which was felt equally by strangers and Gaels. [Gilbert's Viceroys 'of Ireland, p. 87. Richard III. wrote of the Earl of Desmond's fate, seventeen years after it occurred, 'That he had been extortiously slain and murdered by colour of laws, within Ireland, by certain persons, then having the government and rule there, against all manhood, reason, and good conscience.' - Ibid.] Mutual jealousy 'and great dissensions existed among the State officials of the English settlement while the Earl of Worcester was Lord Chancellor. The Treasurer, Sir Roland Fitz Eustace, Baron of Portlester, whose daughter was married to the Earl of Kildare, was arraigned before the Lord Chancellor by Sir John Gilbert. The accusation against him was treason, in inciting the Earl of Desmond to assume the rank of Sovereign in Ireland, undertaking that he and all the land would prefer him to Edward IV. Fitz Eustace indignantly denied the charge, and expressed his willingness to appear to any indictment preferred against him. This bold denial by Lord Portlester, in the opinion of many, proved the falsehood of the accusation, and instead of bringing the charge to trial and sustaining it, Gilbert fled out of the reach of the injured noble. He joined the Irish who were at war with the Deputy, and had the tables turned on himself, being attainted a traitor by the very Parliament which acquitted Lord Portlester from his false impeachment. The peerage of Baron of Ratoath, in the county of Meath, was conferred on Robert Bold, for his services to the King and his father, the Duke of York, at the recommendation of the Chancellor, Earl of Worcester. [Gilbert's Viceroys of Ireland, p. 388.] He was assigned twenty marks yearly out of that manor, to be held by the service of one goshawk. During the sitting of Parliament, convened by the Chancellor, a very important though rather crotchety point was settled, 'Whether the Lieutenant, or Viceroy, vacated his office by passing from Ireland to any of the small islands on or near the coast?' The Parliament ordained, 'that if a Viceroy, or his Deputy, went into any island near Ireland, and returned, such passage should not render the office vacant, but that the Viceregal authority should still stand in full force and effect.' The Island of Lambay, then uninhabited, was given by Parliament to the Chancellor, on consideration of his erecting thereon a fort, to prevent the Bretons, Spaniards, French, and Scots landing, and harbouring there, and making it a rendezvous when they issued forth to plunder the liege merchants passing the eastern coast of Ireland. The English settlement was sorely pressed by the infuriated adherents of the late Earl of Desmond, who marched from the south to avenge his death, and by the ravages of the O'Reillys and other potent chiefs from the north. The townspeople of Drogheda did such effectual service in plundering and burning the mansion and monastery of the O'Reilly sept, that the Chancellor obtained for the Mayor the privilege of having a sword borne before him, as is the custom of the Lord Mayor of London; likewise a pension of 20l. out of the municipal rent to the Crown, for the maintenance of the dignity of that magistrate. The desperate state to which the colony was reduced, caused the Chancellor to recommend that the Earl of Kildare should be taken into Royal favour, provided he obtained proper bail for his future loyalty. Accordingly, on the Archbishop of Dublin and others entering into recognizance to the amount of a thousand marks, a Parliament held before Worcester, in 1468, ratified the pardon of the Earl of Kildare, and restored his estates. He joined the Earl and Countess of Worcester in re-establishing a perpetual chauntry to celebrate Divine service at the altar of St. Catherine the Virgin, in the church of St. Secundinus, or Sechnall, [This Saint is called a native saint; but the learned Irish writer, W. M. Hennessy, M.R.I.A., remarks, that as he is said to have been St. Patrick's nephew, he therefore was not a native of Ireland.] at Dunshaughlin, in Meath, to the honour of God and the Blessed Virgin. The Earl of Worcester left Ireland late in 148, and the Duke of Clarence, having been discharged from the Viceroyalty by Royal Proclamation, dated at York, March 23, 1470, the Earl was appointed in his place. He did not, however, personally discharge the duties, but nominated Edward Dudley as his deputy. It would have been better for the Earl's reputation that he had. The Duke of Clarence and the Earl of Warwick having conspired against Edward IV., fled from England to France, and Lord Scales captured many of their adherents, King Edward, on his arrival at Southampton, found a number of Lord Scale's prisoners there, and ordered them for speedy trial before the Ex-chancellor of Ireland, the Earl of Worcester. As a matter of course they were found guilty of high treason, and sentenced to death. Not content with the customary barbarities sanctioned as punishment for the highest crime known to the laws of England - by Worcester's sentence twenty gentlemen and yeomen were ordered to be hanged, drawn, quartered, and beheaded, and then suspended by the legs, and their heads impaled on sharp pointed stakes. For these atrocities Worcester was named, and rightly, if they be true, the butcher of England. On the restoration of Henry VI. in 1470, the power of the Lancastrian was once more regained, and, we can easily suppose, considerable anxiety was felt to ascertain the whereabouts of 'the Butcher.' There was a heavy score against him which could only be paid by himself in person, and the broad realm of England was searched to requite the perpetrator of such cruelty as had been imputed to him. He dared not show himself in city or town, castle or hamlet sheltered him not; the most vigilant watch was kept at every port and creek so that he should not escape, by sea, and yet he could not be found! The last days of this intellectually gifted nobleman must have been miserable. Perfectly aware of the avidity with which his life was sought, he yet clung to the hope of escape, until another turn of Fortune's changing wheel might restore his friends to power. Afraid to trust himself near the abodes of men, he fled to the lair of the wild beast, and the haunt of the wild fowl. Here be was sought and found. The Earl of Worcester was captured by a party of his deadly enemies, who found him concealed by the branches of a lofty tree in Havering Forest. With exultation and savage glee they consigned him to the gloomy dungeon of the Tower. Seldom was a more desponding prisoner confined within these stern old walls. Since the days of William the Norman it had been a State prison, though, originally, a fortified residence for Kings desirous of having a wide ditch and deep moat between them and their subjects. Here in dejection and pining for freedom, the once powerful Earl of Worcester spent the last sad hours of life. Here he was speedily tried, and it so happened that the President at his trial was John Vere, Earl of Oxford, whose father had been sentenced and executed in the same place four years previously, when Worcester was the Judge. It was Lord Oxford's turn now, and he took the verdict of guilty, and sentenced the Earl of Worcester to be beheaded on Tower hill. We may hope the interval between Worcester's sentence and his execution was well employed. He had seen enough of the mutability of earthly things to turn his thoughts on heaven, and if we can credit the accounts which have reached us, his last hours were piously spent. Caxton, the father of English printers, in his edition, in 1481, of Worcester's translation of 'Tullius his book of Friendship,' relates, that the Earl 'flowered in virtue and cunning,' that 'none was like unto him among the Lords of the temporality in science and moral virtue.' 'Oh! good blessed Lord,' exclaims the mourning Caxton, 'what great loss was it of that noble and virtuous and well-disposed Lord, and what worship had he in Rome, in the presence of our Holy Father the Pope, and so in all other places unto his death, every man there might learn to die and take his death patiently, wherein I hope and doubt not but that God received his soul into His everlasting bliss, for as I am informed he right advisedly ordained all his things, as well for his last will of worldly goods [Honest William Caxton was, no doubt, better acquainted with type than law. The penalty of treason causing forfeiture, left nothing for disposal by will.] as to his soul's health, and patiently and holily without grudging in charity, before that he departed out of this world, I beseech Almighty God to have mercy on his soul, and pray all them that shall hear or read this little treatise, much virtuous of friendship, in likewise of your charity to remember his soul among your prayers." The Irish chroniclers would hardly endorse Caxton's eulogy. They attributed the fate of Worcester to his cruelty in causing the Earl of Desmond to be beheaded. They asserted that the Ex-chancellor's remains were quartered. The Irish Parliament decreed all his possessions in Ireland should be given to the Earl of Kildare, in compensation of his long imprisonment, and other injuries sustained at the hands of Worcester. Lambay Island which had been granted to him was restored to the Archbishop of Dublin.