Examination of Charles Conway

fol. 251r

2093
The Examinacion of Charles Conway of the Citty of Corke Professor of Phisicke, aged forty fyve yeares or thereabouts, tok taken at Corke aforesaid the 22th of March 1653.
<1.> The said Examinant being duely sworne and examined To the first Interragatory hee sayth that hee being an Inhabitant of Galway in the first yeare of the late Rebellion of the Irish saw a shippe in the harbor of Galway which was said to be Captaine Clerks shippe, and that heard that the said shippe came from ffrance, and that shee was laden with Salt, and that one Dominicke Kirwan <A> (nicknamed Baallricke) was merchant of the said Shi{ppe} but the Examinant sayth hee never heard (till yesterday hee was told by mr Richard Butler Clerke) that the said shippe had any Armes or amunicion aboard.
<2.> To the seacond Interr the said Examinant sayth that hee doth not kno{w} nor remember that ever hee heard (till yesterday) that John Turner in the Interr named endeavoured to seize or bring into the store or ffort at Galway the sa{yd} Armes or Amunicion in the Inter mencioned, { } warrant whatsoever, or that the said John Turne{r} or Capt Clerke, were comutted to prison vppon such Accompt, nor can further depose to the said {Inter?}
<3.> To the third Inter hee sayth hee knoweth nothinge
<4.> To the fourth Interr hee sayth that being then in {the} said towne of Galway hee very credibly heard that th{e said} <B> Dominick Kirvan and one Stephen linch fitz Andrew, {and?}Walter Martin, merchants, accompanied with may man{y} boatmen and Soldiers, with boats and boards, went aboard the said shippe, as if they had gone to vnlade the Salt, and surprised the shippe, and killed twoe or three of the said shipps company, some of whom the Examinant sawe mortally wounded, and knoweth tha{t} { }

fol. 251v

2094
afterwards of the said wounds And sayth that after the said Shippe was soe surprised her great Gunnes were brought ashoare, and (as hee thinketh) were planted, against the ffort, but who directed the surprisall of the said shippe, or bringing the said Gunnes ashoare, hee sayth hee doth not know, but sayth that hee beleiveth that what was <C pointing hand> then done in Galway was by the direccion of Patricke Darcye, and the rest of the lawyers now then there in the Towne, And further to the said Interr hee sayth hee cannot depose.
<5.> To the fyfth Interr the said Examinant sayth that hee sawe <D> Murrogh ne Mart ô fflaherty, with many Irish of Irconnaught in the said towne of Galway, in the begining of the Rebellion, but by whose advice or procurement they came thither hee knoweth not, v nor vppon what pretence, vnlesse it was to helpe to beseige the ffort, as hee beleiveth most of the gentlemen of the Countrey were present except the Earle of Clanrickard, And further sayth that one John ffox and his wife and his child, and another English man in the said ffox his house, and one mrs Collins, were all killed, by one Richard Kanowan, and other rude Soldiers, whose names hee never heard, but whether Patrick Darcye was then in towne, and in health, yea or noe, the Examinant knoweth not, but sayth that hee beleiveth had it not <pointing hand> bin for Patricke darcye and the rest of the lawyers the Towne of Galway had not stirred, And to the rest of the said Interr hee sayth hee cannot depose, his cause of knowledge appereth in his deposicion.
<6.> To the sixth Inter hee sayth hee cannot further depose then in his answer to the rest of the Inter hee hath deposed
Charles Conway
March 22th 1653.
deposed before mee
Tho: Richardson

re 100 li. &c

fol. 252r

2095

fol. 252v

2096

Charles Conway
(alias Konowan) his
Examinacion touching the
Murther at Galway.