N A R
R A T I V E, &c.
In bringing
before the Public the following Narrative, together with the
authentic documents necessarily connected with it, the
family of the late Sir Edward William Crosbie most solemnly
disclaim any motive, save that of rescuing his character
from the heavy charges with which it has been grossly
calumniated, and which appear to have received confirmation
from a sentence that deprived him of life. A continuance in
silence might be construed into an acquiescence on the part
of Sir Edward's friends in the justice of that sentence, and
a consequent acknowledgment of the guilt of the party
condemned by it. Under these circumstances, the friends of
Sir Edward Crosbie feel it to be an indispensable duty they
owe to the memory of the deceased, and to his infant son and
daughter, to wipe away, by every effort in their power, that
stain which his unmerited fate might otherwise be made
instrumental in casting on his surviving family: Not
doubting, that, if the cause of truth can prevail, the
publication of the following documents will be found
abundantly adequate to the desired purpose.
With such an important object in view, it
may be asked, “Why a publication, deemed essential to the
vindication of Sir Edward's injured character, should so
long have been withheld.” To this question his friends have
to return the following answer, which they trust will prove
satisfactory to every considerate mind:
That the following Narrative has been so
long withheld from the public, is in part to be attributed
to the almost insuperable difficulties which have been
encountered in procuring an authentic copy of the
Proceedings of the Court-Martial, to whose sentence Sir
Edward fell a sacrifice. But the cause for delay which has
most prevailed with the friends of the deceased on this
occasion, and for which they think themselves entitled to
credit, has arisen from a due consideration of the
distracted state of the country, and the unhappy disposition
of the times. It was not their wish to make use of an
unfortunate, and to them most lamentable, occurrence, as a
pretext for reflection on the governing powers; being fully
persuaded, that the leading Members of Administration were
actuated by principles and sentiments very different from
those of some individuals, who, by a precipitate and
fatal act of delegated authority, were enabled to carry into
effect malicious and unprincipled designs.
Still less was it
their wish, by discharging their duty to a much-injured man,
to add fewel to the unextinguished flame of rebellion, or in
any degree to foment the yet glowing embers of sedition.
With these ideas in their minds, they have anxiously waited
for that period, when, the effervescence of party spirit
being subsided, the public mind should be prepared to review
the late transaction in Ireland with that candour and
moderation necessary to qualify it to discern and frankly
acknowledge the cause of truth and innocence, not less than
to form a cool through decided judgment on the conduct of
those, whom the fury of the times, and the circumstances of
an alarming crisis, had impelled to intemperate and
unjustifiable exertions of authority. These ideas have
hitherto imposed silence on the family of Sir Edward
Crosbie, in spite of the malicious rumours fabricated by
those who were interested in criminating him, and
industriously circulated to throw odium on his character and
principles; and these ideas might have prevailed with them
to have kept still long silence, had not the appearance of a
work, said to be written under the sanction of Government,
by giving an air of superior authority to the charges by
which the author of it has thought proper to blacken the
memory of the deceased, imperiously called for the
publication of the documents now submitted to the reader.
The work here alluded to has for its title, “Memoirs of the
Rebellions in Ireland, &c. by Sir Richard Musgrave.”
The
passage in that work which calls for animadversion from the
friends of Sir Edward Crosbie, occurs, not in the body of
the work among the events that took place at and after the
battle of Carlow, where it ought to have been found, if
found at all; but in a note in the Appendix. At the top of
the leaf, page 26 of the Appendix, after an affidavit
relating to circumstances that happened in the county, the
author adds: “About thirty-six yeomen were shot in Carlow
and its vicinity; but there was not a single instance of
disaffection discovered in a Protestant, that I could hear
of.” To which passage the following note, referred to by an
asterisk, is subjoined: “Except Sir Edward Crosbie, who was
hanged at Carlow; and it is well known, that he piqued
himself upon being a Deist and a Republican.”
In the second
edition of his work the author has omitted the above
illiberal and unjustifiable note, and in its place has
inserted the following: “I shall avoid saying any thing upon
the fate of the unfortunate Sir Edward Crosbie, as many
persons are strongly impressed with an idea of his
innocence; which, it is said, they mean to vindicate in
print.” But as this concession does not amount to a
retraction of the calumnies that had been previously
advanced, though it demonstrates the illiberality and want
of charity of the writer who advanced them; and as the note
under consideration may be perused by many into whose hands
the second edition of the Memoirs may never fall; the
friends of Sir Edward Crosbie feel it to be a debt due to
his memory, to subjoin the following strictures on that part
of Sir Richard's publication, in which they cannot but be
particularly interested. Instead, then, of any direct and
specific charge, supported by conclusive evidence of guilt;
which it had been consistent with the character of a
faithful historian to have recorded, was such a charge to
have been substantiated; the passage objected to, the
impartial reader cannot fail to remark, contains a
disgraceful insinuation, grounded only on supposed general
opinion; the designed tendency of which is too obvious to be
pointed out.
The whole work, of which the foregoing passage
constitutes a part, furnishes abundant proof that its author
was by no means deficient in collecting information relative
to his general subject.[1]
Nor was he less so in pursuit of the particulars of Sir
Edward Crosbie's case. It is well known
by whom he
applied officially for a copy of the Proceedings of
the Court-Martial in question. The President of it, Major
Denis, has asserted that he delivered a copy of them to Sir
Richard; though, at another time, his memory relative to
this circumstance appears to have failed him. Be this,
however, as it may; after the enquiries made by Sir Richard
with the aid, and under the sanction, of Government, it is
not to be conceived that he could be ignorant of the
particulars relative to the trial of Sir Edward Crosbie. The
fair conclusion, therefore, to be drawn from Sir Richard's
silence, as to any specific charge, or substantial tokens of
guilt on that occasion, is, that no such charge or tokens
were to be produced; and that in fact there did not exist
one proof that Sir Edward Crosbie was concerned in any
single act or intention of a traitorous or treasonable
nature. Thus circumstanced, the least that was to be
expected from Sir Richard was, that he should have passed
over the subject of Sir Edward Crosbie in silence. But what
judgment must be formed of the integrity of the historian,
the honour or generosity of the man, who, in default of
evidence to condemn, scruples not, by a base and unsupported
insinuation, to class Sir Edward with those members of
society who are the deserved objects of obloquy and
reproach?
Before Sir Richard Musgrave had presumed to have
asserted, that Sir Edward Crosbie “piqued himself upon being
a Deist,” or even that he was a Deist, he ought to have had
proofs of the fact to produce, more convincing than we are
confident, he possessed.[2]
At the same time it should have been considered, that for
his religious opinions Sir Edward is accountable to that
Being only, to whose merciful judgment it is the duty as
well as comfort of his friends to leave him. That Sir Edward
“piqued himself upon being a Republican” or that he really
was one, is a position fully disproved by his avowed
principles, which he warmly and honestly proclaimed on all
occasions both public and private, in terms similar to those
he made use of in a most serious moment. “I am,” said he to
his friend Mr. Robinson,[3]
“a steady friend to the constitution of King, Lords, and
Commons, with a Parliamentary Reform, striking off the
rotten borough.” With respect to his political sentiments,
the friends of Sir Edward have no hesitation in
acknowledging, in the language of the same letter from which
the above passage is taken, that “he thought Ireland
governed rather as a colony, than as a federal state. His
noble heart spurned at the hauteur and oppression of
the great and rich towards the poor and lowly. On these
topics he always expressed himself with ardour.” Under the
influence of these sentiments, fond also of retirement, he
could not heartily co-operate in the prosecution of measures
which did not share his approbation:
A species of reserved
conduct, which, in the judgment of those, who either did not
choose, or did not
know how, to distinguish
the occasional opponents of Ministers from the enemies of
the constitution, formed a foundation on which, by bringing
a charge of disaffection against Sir Edward, to raise an
undeserved reputation to themselves at his expence. And when
the fervour of conflicting passions shall be assuaged, when
impartial judgment shall resume its office, and truth shall
once again find welcome admittance to the public mind, such,
we trust, after the perusal of the following pages, it will
be candidly acknowledged, was the extent of Sir Edward
Crosbie's error, (if indeed it was an error) and such the
utmost atrocity of his guilt. It has been judged necessary
to repel the above insidious attack on the character and
principles of Sir Edward Crosbie, which in these times,
might in the apprehension of many, be regarded as furnishing
presumptive evidence of his guilt, as preparatory to those
direct proofs of his innocence which will be detailed in the
ensuing Narrative.[4]
But whilst they repel, with the sentiment it deserves, the
charge of the uncharitable historian, the friends of Sir
Edward Crosbie feel no wish to bring a railing accusation
against any of the parties concerned in the event which
they, from their knowledge of the character of the deceased,
have been doomed so deeply to deplore.
If a plain and
undisguised recital of some facts contained in the ensuing
pages should prove displeasing to any individuals, it will
be obviously remarked that they could not have omitted them
without injuring their cause. The have, however, suppressed
many others, equally authentic, as not being
absolutely essential, which yet would have been strongly
characteristic of the spirit, disposition, and temper of the
times, and of individuals. They lament, without
presuming to judge of the necessity of, the measure, by
which an important branch of authority was necessarily
entrusted with a body of men, that could not be supposed
possessed of a sufficient share of appropriate information
and experience to exercise it with discretion; at a crisis,
too, that bespoke the absence of that coolness of mind, that
caution and moderation, essentially requisite to the humane
and equitable discharge of the judicial office. At the same
time they flatter themselves, that, in paying the debt due
to the memory of a deceased relative, they are also
discharging the duty of good subjects, in pointing out, in
the unhappy conclusion of the subject before them, the
possible consequences of uniting in the same hands the
executive and judiciary departments of Government, under
circumstances that preclude all reasonable hope of a
faithful, just, and temperate exercise of these important
prerogatives.
As soon as Lady Crosbie had in any degree
recovered from the dreadful shock she had sustained from the
terrible and unexpected event of her husband’s death, she in
vain sought in her own mind for the cause of his
apprehension, what charges could have been adduced against
him, and from whence the fatal consequence of his trial
could have arisen. Retired in his mode of life, domestic in
his occupations, and seldom absent from home, it was morally
impossible he could have been engaged in any transaction
whatever, without her observation and knowledge. What then
could he have committed? Upon the spot it was impossible to
gain any information. Every one in the neighbourhood was, at
the time, so intimidated, inimical, or prejudiced, that she
could find no one that would even speak to her upon the
subject. Thus shunned, and almost deserted, from the
Proceedings of the Court-Martial alone could she hope to
discover the grounds on which the Court had pronounced the
severest sentence it could inflict. She was firmly persuaded
that the publication of these Proceedings would be an ample
and complete vindication of her husband’s character; or, at
least, that it would enable her to proffer such answers and
explanations, as, however conclusive the evidence might have
appeared at the moment, would effectually remove every
unfavourable impression, and rescue his memory from the
infamy to which it was now consigned.
In a forlorn and abandoned condition,
without servants to assist her, without friends to consult
with, and exposed to the frequent insults and depredation of
the military, still, in compliance with her duty to her
children and to the memory of her deceased husband, Lady
Crosbie submitted to her situation, and, although surrounded
with horrors, perseveringly remained for many months at
Viewmount, the family residence. From thence she applied by
a letter to Major-General Sir Charles Asgill, commanding in
the district of Carlow, (who had confirmed the fatal
sentence, and ordered it to be put in execution) requesting
he would give her a copy of the proceedings of the
Court-Martial, which had condemned her late husband, a
request with which Sir Charles did not think proper to
comply;[5]
the following being a copy of the answer which Lady Crosbie
received from him on the subject.
“Madam,
July 26.
“I had yesterday the honour of receiving
your Ladyship’s letter, and you may rest assured that
nothing would give me greater pleasure, than to be able to
afford you any comfort or relief in your present very
distressing situation, for which I feel most sincerely. The
Court-Martial is now in possession of Government. I have no
copy of it whatsoever; and if I had, I should not think
myself at liberty to transmit to you the Minutes of it,
without permission from his Excellency the Lord-Lieutenant,
or Lard Castlereagh. I therefore think the application
should be made by you directly to that quarter; at the same
time I hope you will excuse my saying, that as the Court was
open, and no part of the evidence kept secret, it would
probably be objected to; as I think it very unusual, and if
granted in one instance, cannot with justice be refused to
all.
“I have the honour to be, &c.
(signed)
"Charles
Asgill.”
We shall animadvert no farther on this
letter at present than to remark, that we know not by what
precedents it was unusual to grant what is an act of
common justice, and founded expressly upon an Act of
Parliament.[6]
We have been assured by the first authorities in civil and
military law, that such grant of the Proceedings of a
General Court-Martial is not
“unusual;” and we hope
that the denial of such a request is not to be paralleled by
a single instance in any part of his Majesty’s dominions. As
to what Sir Charles has said relating to the evidence, and
to the Court’s being “open,” it will be adverted to
in its proper place.
The next step, therefore, to be taken,
was to apply to Government, to whom it is stated in Sir
Charles Asgill’s letter, that the proceedings had been
delivered. Accordingly, Mr. Leeson, the only friend and
relative of the family that Lady Crosbie then had in Dublin,
who would move in her behalf, waited personally on the Lord
Lieutenant, and, in the name of Lady Crosbie, requested that
his Excellency would order a copy of the Proceedings of the
Court-Martial held on Sir Edward William Crosbie, to be
delivered to her. Mr. Leeson was graciously received, and
was told by his Excellency Marquis Cornwallis, that he would
order a copy thereof to be delivered to the family. Hence it
may be inferred, that the Lord-Lieutenant did not consider
the request as “unusual.” After having waited in vain
for a considerable time, and repeatedly applied to no
purpose at the Secretary of State’s office, Mr. Leeson, at
length, on the 1st of January 1799, again waited on the
Lord-Lieutenant, and received the following answer to his
renewed application of the Proceedings:— That “from the
enquiries he,” Lord Cornwallis, “had made, there were not
any favourable ground to proceed in the business.” Mr.
Leeson replied, that “the family of Sir Edward Crosbie
wished to have the Minutes of the Court-Martial, let the
contents be what they might.” His Excellency then desired,
“he would write to him or his secretary on the subject.” The
following Memorial was then presented in Lady Crosbie’s name
by her friends in Dublin.
“To His Excellency Charles
Marquis Cornwallis,
Lord-Lieutenant-General and Governor-General of Ireland,
“The humble Memorial of Castiliana
Lady Crosbie
“Sheweth,
“That your Memorialist, conscious of the
innocence of her late husband Sir Edward William Crosbie,
baronet, who was executed at Carlow, on the 5th day of June
last, by martial law; and feeling it a duty which she owes
to her children to vindicate the honour of their father,
(who was ever zealously attached to the constitution, and
whose ancestors had suffered considerable losses by adhering
to the Royal cause, as appears by the records of Parliament,
since the restoration of King Charles the Second; in
consequence of which losses, and of addresses from the House
of Commons, they have successively enjoyed a pension from
the crown;[7])
has made application to the General and other officers,
commanding in the district of Carlow, to have a copy of the
Proceedings of the Court-Martial by which he was condemned,
furnished to her; in consequence of which application, Sir
Charles Asgill was pleased, by letter dated the 26th of July
last, a copy of which is herewith laid before your
Excellency, to inform you Memorialist, that ‘the
Court-Martial was then in possession of Government, and that
he had no copy of it whatever; and that if he had, he should
not think himself at liberty to transmit it to your
Memorialist, without the orders of the Lord-Lieutenant, or
Lord Castlereagh.’ Whereupon your Memorialist caused
diligent search to be made in the several offices, where the
Proceedings of Courts-Martial are generally lodged, but hath
been informed, that the Proceedings under the Court-Martial
that sat on Sir Edward William Crosbie, have never been
transmitted to, nor lodged in, any office in this city.
Your Memorialist does not seek for the said Proceedings, in order
to cast any reflection on the conduct of the officers who
composed the said Court-Martial, but only to evince to your
Excellency, that the evidence on which the sentence of the
said Court was grounded, was such as would not, at any other
time or on any other occasion, have affected the life of the
most insignificant of his Majesty’s subjects. And as
evidence of the innocence of your Memorialist’s said
husband, she begs leave to lay before your Excellency the
copy of a letter, written by him a few hours before his
death, to his friend the Honourable Mr. Justice Downes. May
it therefore please your Excellency to order, that General
Heniker, who now commands in the district of Carlow, may
transmit to your Excellency the Proceedings had under the
said Court-Martial, and to order a copy thereof to be given
to your Memorialist, and your Memorialist will ever pray,”
&c.[8]
To the above Memorial, the following
answer was returned, viz.
“Sir,
Dublin Castle, Jan. 30, 1799.
“The Lord-Lieutenant commands me to
acquaint you, in answer to your letter of yesterday’s date,
inclosing a Memorial from Lady Crosbie, and a copy of a
letter from Sir Edward Crosbie to Judge Downes, that his
Excellency has made every enquiry, but cannot learn where
the Proceedings of the Court-Martial upon Sir Edward Crosbie
have been deposited.
“I have the honour to be, Sir,
“Your most obedient, humble servant,
(Signed)
“E. B. Littlehales.”
“Joseph Leeson, esq; 27, Henry
Street.”
Previous to the delivery of the above
Memorial, Lady Crosbie, (who, in the month of the preceding
November, had fled for refuge to England[9])
had addressed from Bath the following letter to Lord
Cornwallis, which she had ventured to send by the post.
“May it please your Excellency,
“The afflicted widow of the late
unfortunate Sir Edward Crosbie, unable to ascertain the
cause of his condemnation, and disappointed in all her
efforts to obtain the Proceedings of his trial, throws
herself on your Excellency’s justice and humanity,
beseeching you will be graciously pleased to order a copy of
the Minutes of the Court-Martial to be delivered to her.
Forced to take refuge in this kingdom, where, with a
distracted mend and bleeding heart, she finds herself
destitute of friends and advisers; if her conduct in this
instance be irregular, she trusts it will not therefore be
misjudged.
She fears, she is violating in appearance the
respect she sincerely feels for your Excellency’s rank as
well as character, in thus daring to approach you; but
despairing of success from any other quarter, and full of
anxiety to know the particulars of a trial so fatal to her
children and herself, she ventures to supplicate your
Excellency’s power to
command the surrender of these
minutes so steadily withheld from her; and most earnestly
entreats your Lordship’s pardon for any presumption her
ignorance on the one hand, and her zeal on the other, may
now lead her into.
-
“With all due deference and respect,
-
she
begs leave to subscribe herself, &c.
(Signed)
“C. Crosbie.”
Not receiving any answer to the above
letter, Lady Crosbie, by her friends in England, solicited
and obtained the interference of a person high in office and
in rank in England, to procure for her, by his Excellency’s
means, a sight of the said Proceedings; and at the same
time, the following petition was presented to him in her
name, viz.
“To his Excellency the Lord-Lieutenant-General
and Governor-General
of Ireland,
“The Petition of Castiliana
Lady Crosbie
“Sheweth,
“That your Petitioner, sinking under the
weight of that calamity, which Divine Providence has been
pleased to bring upon her, and considering that the only
satisfaction which remains for a weeping and distressed
widow, can be derived from reflection of her having
discharged her duty to the memory of a much-lamented
husband, and to his innocent children, presumed some time
since to appeal to that humanity and love of justice which
characterize your Excellency, for a sight of the Minutes of
the Court-Martial, which constitutes the fatal source of her
present aggravated affliction. To this appeal, your
Excellency was pleased to return a most gracious answer. But
the order for the delivery of the Minutes not have been
complied with, your distressed Petitioner presumed once
again to address herself to your Excellency on the subject.
The answer to this address having been, that your Excellency
had not got the Minutes of the Court-Martial; your
Petitioner humbly trusts, that the circumstances of her
condition will apologize for the repetition of her
importunity, as she had been informed by Major-General Sir
Charles Asgill, that the Minutes of the Court-Martial in
question have been delivered to Government. She therefore
humbly hopes, that a just Government will not without from a
weeping widow that reasonable satisfaction which it is in
its power to afford.
“And your Petitioner shall ever pray, &c.
(Signed)
“Castiliana
Crosbie.”
At Lady Crosbie’s (the Petitioner’s)
request, Mr. Leeson again waited on the Lord-Lieutenant for
an answer to the above Petition; which answer he thus
details in a letter to Lady Crosbie.
“I told him, that I applied for an answer
to the Memorial.” He replied, ‘All my enquiries have been
unsuccessful to find where those Proceedings have been
deposited.’ I answered, “I thought that very strange — that
the officer who presided, or Sir Charles Asgill, should
know.” He replied, ‘That those along with many others, he
had heard, had been lost in the hurry of those times.’ I
said, “The people of the office should be brought to
account, and requested that he would again apply to Sir
Charles Asgill, or Colonel Mahon; or that, I thought General
Heniker might be able to gain some account of them; as I was
sure Sir Edwards innocence would appear from the
Proceedings”. He replied, ‘General Heniker could know
nothing about it.’ I answered, “He now lived where Sir
Edward had lived, and had opportunity of knowing; and
requested, that if he could gain any information, he would
be so kind as to let me know in Henry-street.” He bowed
assent, and we parted.”
Thus have all the efforts we could make
proved fruitless to obtain — What? That which we had right
by Act of Parliament to demand, and which the parties
concerned had no right to refuse. Major-General Sir Charles
Asgill asserts, that the Proceedings are delivered to
Government. Every office denies their having received them.[10]
His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant, after various
applications and conferences, at length informs us, that he
has heard these along with many others have been lost. But
since his Excellency has only
heard this, and since
from some communications with the Judge-Advocate’s office we
have more than reason to be assured they still exist
somewhere, they may at some future day be brought to light.
Could any sacrifice, in the power of the family to make,
effect this important point, it would be the utmost of their
wishes. As the publication of the regular proceedings would
be the most authentic and proper, so, they are persuaded, it
would be the fullest and best vindication of Sir Edward
Crosbie.
The candid reader will find our apology
for thus detailing the measures that were taken to obtain
the Proceedings of the Court-Martial, in the report
maliciously raised and industriously circulated, that the
family of Sir Edward Crosbie had never sought for the
proceedings of his trial. We do not assert that this report
originated with Major Denis, the President; but we are
authorized, by part of his conduct, to say he encouraged it.
When he was applied to by a most respectable gentleman in
the neighbourhood of Carlow for a copy of the Proceedings
officially to be given to Sir Richard Musgrave, who was
writing an History of the Rebellion, he refused giving them,
or any particulars relating to them, under the pretence that
he intended them for the Serjeant-Major, who he thought
might dispose of them to advantage.
It will readily be
conceived, that no application was made to this Serjeant-Major,
nor indeed was any inquiry made about him; for it was
concluded, that if the Proceedings in question were to be
thus committed, in order to their being purchased, they
would easily be obtained through the proper channel without
an expence, which the plunder her property had sustained
both by the rebels and the military, rendered Lady Crosbie
at that time little capable of disbursing; nor would she be
so far instrumental in disgracing the character of the
military, as to suppose that an act of justice, a sacred
right, would by them be put up to sale.
In the summer of 1799, a lady who had
seen some of the papers on this unhappy subject here
inserted, and who wished for further information,
accidentally became acquainted with Major Denis at
Harrowgate, and took that opportunity of expressing her
regret and surprise, that the Proceedings of the
Court-Martial on Sir Edward Crosbie had been withheld,
notwithstanding so much had been done by the family to
obtain them. He assured her, that no person whatever had
demanded them, except Sir Richard Musgrave,
to whom he
gave them; — that they were then in his trunk in
Ireland; — that on his return thither he would let her see
them, and would give them to any of the family, who thought
proper to apply. A few months after, this conversation
reached the ears of Lady Crosbie, who immediately wrote to
Major Denis the following letter:
“Sir,
“In consequence of a conversation,
repeated to me, that you had with a lady at Harrowgate, in
which you said, that “you never had been applied to for the
Minutes of the Court-Martial, held on the late Sir Edward
Crosbie, of which you were President; which Minutes you
would have given up, if called upon by any part of the
family; that they were in your trunk in Ireland, or you
would have shewn them to the lady, for you had no objection
to their being seen even by a stranger.” I think it my duty,
having heard of this conversation, to make immediate
application to you for them; and should have done so before,
had I earlier known they were in your possession; as I must
conclude, you would hot have said what has been repeated to
me, as above related, if you did not really wish to give the
family of Sir Edward a satisfaction they have a just claim
to.
I am, &c.
(Signed)
“Castiliana Crosbie.”
“Major Denis, Mount-Mellick.”
To which letter the following is an
exact copy of Major Denis’s answer.
“Madam,
Mount-Mellick, Feb. 1, 1800.
“I have been honoured with your letter,
representing a conversation I had with a lady at Harrowgate,
respecting a transaction which occurred during the late
rebellion. It concerns me much to renew a subject,
which
I hoped was buried in oblivion. But as the lady has
thought proper to mention the business, and which, I
thought, I was only speeking on in confidence, I must
beg leave to say, that on her representing to me that
reflection had been cast on the Proceedings of the
Court-Martial of which I was a member, in vindication I
declared my sentiments, observing I could by the Proceedings
prove the assertion I made. The lady will, I am sure, do me
justice to recollect what my sentiments were:— that I should
be extremely sorry to bring forward any thing to hurt the
feelings of any of the family, part of whom I had been
acquainted with a long time, and had the highest respect
for. No stranger has seen from me, since the unfortunate
time I allude to, any copy. I understand applications have
already been made to my superior officers for such a copy; I
should think myself unwarntable in doing so at
present. Any thing in my power, consistant with what
I conceve propriety, I would do to serve Lady
Crosbie, or any of the family; but in the present case I am
sure she will excuse me.
“I am, Madam,
“Your most obedient humble servant,
(Signed)
Hum. Denis.
“I imagine the original
Proceedings are placed in the Judge-Advocate’s office.”
[
Page 2 ] Page 3 [
Next Page
]
Please report any links or images which do not open to
mjbrennan30@gmail.com
The information on this web
site is for personal use only, and under no circumstances is it to be
used/copied for commercial purposes by Professional Researchers.
Neither can it
be used for the purpose of gain from any person and/or organisation.
© 2001 Ireland Genealogy Projects,
IGP TM By Pre-emptive Copyright - All rights reserved
Back to the top