164 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 



is only one of several cases of harbouring or being in correspondence with 

 priests. 



In 1620, Christopher Draycott was summoned for behaving outrageously 

 to Sir Francis Eoe, Knight, Mayor of Drogheda, by spitting in his face, 

 striking Lady Eoe his wife, and throwing the Marshal of the prison, a man of 

 seventy years of age, down the stairs, and also of uttering vile language. In 

 the same year, we find the case of abduction of Margaret Cusack, which 

 though under 3 Hen. VII was a felony, and properly ought to have been 

 tried in the King's Bench, yet, on account of "the native disposition of this 

 country in like cases," it was decided that the abductors be censured in the 

 Court of Castle Chamber. 1 



In 1626 Sir Dominick Sarsfield, Visct. Kinsale, exhibited his bill against 

 Lord Courcy touching the title ; and Sir Thos. Crooke, bart., Baltimore 

 Co. Cork, complained against Sir Walter Coppinger of the same county, and 

 others, that, being Papists, they had endeavoured to supplant him and " return 

 these places to superstition and barbarism." 2 



In 1630 Sir W. Power complained that the Earl of Cork had caused him 

 to be arrested in England, and then came into the Court of Castle Chamber 

 and moved the dismissal of a cause he had against him, on the ground of his 

 absence; while, in 1639, the Lord Deputy exhibited an information against 

 Sir Pierce Crosby, Lord Esmond, Lord Mountmorris, &c, in the Castle 

 Chamber, for publishing a libel that he was the cause of the death of a man 

 called Esmonde. 3 



These are only a few of the more important amongst the numerous cases 

 with which this Court was engaged; but they will give some idea of the 

 variety of actions which came within its jurisdiction. 



The punishment meted out in these cases varied considerably. Sometimes 

 the culprit was condemned to imprisonment, pillory, and fine, with forfeiture 

 of goods ; sometimes to a tine only, according to the heinousness of the 

 offence. The fines varied from i>10,000 to a few shillings ; but many were 

 heavy, as affecting wealthy people, and to strike terror into their hearts. 

 Thus in the case of Sir A. Blundell v. Thos. L'Estrange and Eobt. Smith 

 (1638), the former of these defendants was fined the enormous sum of £10,000, 

 while Smith was fined only £100. In the case of the nobility and gentry 

 who refused to pay cess in Elizabeth's time, several were fined £500. Lord 

 Howth, for his inhuman treatment of his wife and daughter, was condemned 

 to pay £1,000, but this was reduced to £500 on his appeal. Some of the 



1 Egmont Papers (Hist. MSS. Com.), vol. i, pt. 1, pp. 59, 60. 



2 Cal. State Papers (Ireland), 1647-60, p. 82. 



3 Cal. State Papers .Ireland), 1633-47, p. 215. 



