431 
been about 111 years of age, that I might have it engraved. On inspec- 
tion at the Rolls’ Office, Dublin, the record was found to be only an 
enrolment, and that the original was an ensealed deed—a very common 
mode at that time,—to which her signature had not been attached. 
Since these his discoveries have been made public by the writer in 
the ‘‘ Quarterly Review,” and Columbus has shown us the egg stand- 
ing on its end, my paper has’ been referred to, and designated as “‘start- 
ing a perfectly new paradox of his” (Mr. Sainthill’s) ‘‘ own,” and that 
“‘ He fixed on a certain Margaret O’Brien, wife of James, ninth Earl 
of Desmond, as the Old Countess. Mr. Sainthill submitted his conjec- 
ture to Sir William Betham; and Sir William Betham, from his letters, 
which I possess from Mr. Sainthill, appeared to adopt it, though with 
some hesitation, and a slight correction of dates, assigning a later period 
for the death of the supposed old Countess’s swpposed husband.” 
The extracts that I have given from Sir William Betham’s original 
letters, which have been returned to me for reference, show that the 
latter passage must have been written from an erroneous recollection of, 
and not a present reference to, the correspondence; for so far from Sir 
William assigning a /ater period than I had done, on the authority of 
the Harleian (1487), to the death of Earl James, Sir William writes, 
(5th December, 1832), he was murdered ‘‘ in 1467, not 1487 ;” and I sub- 
mitted to Ais correction, and accepted the earlier date. Again, as to Sir 
William’s hesitation respecting my conjecture, that Margaret 0’ Bryen was 
the old Countess, it has been seen that I was indebted to Sir William 
for the knowledge of her haying been the wife of Earl James; and he 
suggested that she was much more likely to have been the Lady ; and 
subsequently, having submitted the question to him, in his letters of the 
ist February, 1833, and the 13th March, 1834, he gave his hearty con- 
currence to the conjecture, and that he thought she must have been the 
old Countess. 
To the propriety of this conjecture of mine having been ‘‘ a paradox”’ 
I decidedly object. Words, like coins, are estimated and taken without 
any reference to their original, but to their present current value; 
and, in general society, “‘paradox’’ is now understood as an absurd con- 
clusion from certain premises. In my paper the premises were laid 
down by Sir Walter Raleigh, who had stated that he himself had known 
the old Countess of Desmond, who was married in Edward IY.’s time, 
and held her jointure from all the Earls of Desmond since then: This 
personal acquaintance with the Countess was deemed to render Sir 
Walter’s statement unquestionable, and consequently to limit the in- 
quiry to the period of Edward IV.’s reign, which commenced 1461, and 
closed 1483. I considered that it was only within this period that I 
could look for her; and so limited, and believing, as I do, Sir William 
Betham correct, that James, the ninth earl, married Margaret O’Bryen, 
I still think, that, whether the earl was murdered in 1467 or 1487 (the 
latter date making most in my favour), my conclusion was the most 
probable that could then be arrived at. We now know that the most 
material part of Sir Walter’s limitation, ‘‘that she held her jointure 
from ali the earls from Edward IV.’s time,”’ was not the fact ; and my 
