453 
on foot to London, to seek the redress of her cruel and bitter grievances, 
and in her 140th year had successfully surmounted those difficulties and 
dangers, made good her way to Queen Elizabeth, got back her own, and 
with the Sovereign’s writ of restitution in her aged hands, had returned 
triumphant to dispossess in her turn the robber occupant of Inchiquin 
Castle; and that within its walls, and as its mistress, she had ended her 
days in peace; yet that on all these wonders, in all of which every man, 
woman, and child, would have taken an Irish, burning frenzied rejoicing 
and exulting interest, every talking and narrating individual was silent, 
and all they would communicate to the curious and inquiring English 
stranger respecting their Countess was, that she lived to be about 140 
years of age, had young teeth in her old days, and once a week took a 
walk of some eight or ten miles. If any persons can bring themselves 
to believe that this could have occurred at Youghal in A. D. 1613,—7f 
the Countess, by her wrongs, had been driven to England, I have only 
to say that I am not one of their number, and I suspect also that I am 
one of very many. 
I may now briefly refer to the grounds on which I arrive at the 
conclusion that the Countess was not disturbed in the possession of her 
jointure, and did not appear at the court of Elizabeth seeking redress. 
The story rests solely on the gossip of the Earl of Leycester, who 
distinctly states the occurrence to have taken place in the reign of Queen 
Elizabeth ; his table-talk was written at Paris, A. D. 1640, being thirty- 
six years after the Countess’s death. To the absurd improbabilities of 
the tale attention has been directed. 
The Countess’s legal rights to her jointure were acknowledged and 
admitted by Queen Elizabeth’s Government, who accepted the return 
made in 1589 of Earl Garrett’s forfeited estates, so charged, and Sir 
Walter Raleigh’s return at the same time that Inchiquin continued in 
her occupation as her jointure. We have further Sir Walter Raleigh’s 
lease of 1588 to Mr. Cleaver, and to Mr. Reve, 1589, proving the 
Countess had an acknowledged first charge on the lands, by the rent 
doubling itself, and a light-horseman to be maintained by the tenants 
on her death. And when Sir Walter appealed to all the noblemen and 
gentry of Munster, as knowing the Countess, of course they equally knew 
her established position and legal rights as Dowager Countess of Tho- 
mas, Earl of Desmond. 
In the face of this known and acknowledged legal right of jointure 
for her life, who could attempt to disturb her possession of it ? 
This I consider direct positive evidence. 
We have then the negative. 
T have shown that Sir Walter Raleigh and Sir Francis Bacon were 
both constant residents in London from 1589, when we know that the 
Countess was residing undisturbed at Inchequin ; so that she could not 
have been in London without their being acquainted with it. And yet 
both these parties, as appears in their writings referring to her, know 
nothing of it. 
