A \ B \ C \ D \ E \ F \ G \ H \ I \ J \ K \ L \ M \ N \ O \ P \ R \ S \ T \ U \ V \ W \Z

An Illustrated History of Ireland from AD 400 to 1800 by Mary Frances Cusack

M >> Mary Frances Cusack >> An Illustrated History of Ireland from AD 400 to 1800




A recent writer, whose love of justice has led him to take a position in
regard to Irish ecclesiastical history which has evoked unpleasant
remarks from those who are less honest, writes thus: "There was not even
the show of free action in the ordering of that Parliament, nor the
least pretence that liberty of choice was to be given to it. The
instructions given to Sussex, on the 10th of May 1559, for making
Ireland Protestant by Act of Parliament, were peremptory, and left no
room for the least deliberation. Sussex had also other instructions
(says Cox) to him and the Council, to set up the worship of God as it is
in England, and make such statutes next Parliament as were lately made
in England, _mutatis mutandis_. [Hist. Angl. Part I. p.313.] It is plain
that her Majesty's command is not sufficient warrant for a national
change of faith, and that a convocation of bishops only is not the
proper or legal representative assembly of the Church. It is also plain
that the acts of an unwilling Parliament, and that Parliament one which
does not deserve the name of a Parliament, cannot be justly considered
as the acts of either the Irish Church or the Irish people."[407]

The official list of the members summoned to this Parliament, has been
recently published by the Irish Archaeological Society. More than
two-thirds of the upper house were persons of whose devotion to the
Catholic faith there has been no question; there were but few members in
the lower house. No county in Ulster was allowed a representative, and
only one of its borough towns, Carrickfergus, was permitted to elect a
member. Munster furnished twenty members. No county members were allowed
in Connaught, and it had only two boroughs, Galway and Athenry, from
which it could send a voice to represent its wishes. The remaining fifty
members were chosen from a part of Leinster. In fact, the Parliament was
constituted on the plan before-mentioned. Those who were considered
likely to agree with the Government, were allowed to vote; those of
whose dissent there could be no doubt, were not allowed a voice in the
affairs of the nation.

It might be supposed that, with the exception of a few members of the
upper house, such a Parliament would at once comply with the Queen's
wishes; but the majority made no secret of their intention to oppose the
change of religion, and the penal code which should be enacted to
enforce it. The Deputy was in an unpleasant Position. Elizabeth would
not easily brook the slightest opposition to her wishes. The Deputy did
not feel prepared to encounter her anger, and he determined to avoid the
difficulty, by having recourse to a most unworthy stratagem. First, he
prorogued the house from the 11th of January to the 1st of February,
1560; and then took advantage of the first day of meeting, when but few
members were present, to get the Act passed; secondly, he solemnly swore
that the law should never be carried into execution, and by this false
oath procured the compliance of those who still hesitated. I shall give
authority for these statements.

The letter of Elizabeth, with her positive instructions to have the law
passed, was dated October 18, 1559, and may be seen _in extenso_ in the
_Liber Munerum Hibernia_, vol. i. p.113. There are several authorities
for the dishonest course pursued by the Lord Deputy. The author of
_Cambrensis Eversus_ says: "The Deputy is said to have used force, and
the Speaker treachery. I heard that it had been previously announced in
the house that Parliament would not sit on that very day on which the
laws against religion were enacted; but, in the meantime, a private
summons was sent to those who were well known to be favourable to the
old creed."[408] Father George Dillon, who died in 1650, a martyr to his
charity in assisting the plague-stricken people of Waterford, gives the
following account of the transaction: "James Stanihurst, Lord of
Corduff, who was Speaker of the lower house, by sending private summons
to some, without any intimation to the more respectable Irish who had a
right to attend, succeeded in carrying that law by surprise. As soon as
the matter was discovered, in the next full meeting of Parliament, there
was a general protest against the fraud, injustice, and _deliberate
treachery_ of the proceeding; but the Lord Justice, having solemnly
sworn that the law would never be carried into execution, the
remonstrants were caught in the dexterous snare, and consented that the
enactment should remain on the statute-book."[409] Dr. Rothe
corroborates these statements, and records the misfortunes which
followed the Speaker's family from that date.[410] Dr. Moran[411] has
very acutely observed, that the day appointed for the opening of
Parliament was the festival of St. Brigid, which was always kept with
special solemnity in Ireland; therefore, the orthodox members would
probably have absented themselves, unless informed of some business
which absolutely required their attendance.

The Loftus MS., in Marsh's Library, and Sir James Ware, both mention the
positive opposition of the Parliament to pass this law, and the mission
of the Earl of Sussex to consult her Majesty as to what should be done
with the refractory members. If he then proposed the treachery which he
subsequently carried out, there is no reason to suppose her Majesty
would have been squeamish about it, as we find she was quite willing to
allow even more questionable methods to be employed on other occasions.

The Loftus MS. mentions a convocation of bishops which assembled this
year, "by the Queen's command, for establishing the Protestant
religion." The convocation was, if possible, a greater failure than the
Parliament. If the bishops had obeyed the royal command, there would
have been some record of their proceedings; but until the last few
years, when the _ipse dixit_ of certain writers was put forward as an
argument--for proof it cannot be called--that the Irish Catholic bishops
had conformed to the Protestant religion, so wild a theory was not even
hazarded. It would be impossible here to go into details and proofs of
the nonconformity of each bishop. The work has been already undertaken,
with admirable success, by an Anglican clergyman.[412] I shall, however,
give some of the impediments offered to the progress of the Reformation
in the time of Queen Elizabeth, and of the cruel persecutions which were
inflicted on those who dared to wish for liberty to worship God
according to their conscience.

Notwithstanding the solemn promise of the Lord Deputy, the penal
statutes against Catholics were carried out. In 1563 the Earl of Essex
issued a proclamation, by which all priests, secular and regular, were
forbidden to officiate, or even to reside in Dublin. Fines and penalties
were strictly enforced for absence from the Protestant service; before
long, torture and death were inflicted. Priests and religious were, as
might be expected, the first victims. They were hunted into mountains
and caves; and the parish churches and few monastic chapels which had
escaped the rapacity of Henry VIII., were sacrificed to the sacrilegious
emissaries of Elizabeth. Curry gives some account of those who suffered
for the faith in this reign. He says: "Among many other Roman Catholic
bishops and priests, there were put to death for the exercise of their
function in Ireland, Globy O'Boyle, Abbot of Boyle, and Owen O'Mulkeran,
Abbot of the Monastery of the Holy Trinity, hanged and quartered by Lord
Grey, in 1580. John Stephens suffered the same punishment from Lord
Burroughs, for saying Mass, in 1597; Thady O'Boyle was slain in his own
monastery at Donegal; six friars were slain at Moynihigan; John
O'Calyhor and Bryan O'Freeor were killed at their monastery in Ulster,
with Felimy O'Hara, a lay brother. Eneus Penny was massacred at the
altar of his own parish church, Killagh. Fourteen other priests died in
Dublin Castle, either from hard usage, or the violence of torture."

Dr. Adam Loftus, the Protestant Archbishop of Armagh, was one of the
most violent persecutors of the Catholics. In his first report to the
Queen, dated May 17th, 1565, he describes the nobility of the Pale as
all devoted to the ancient creed; and he recommends that they should be
fined "in a good round sum," which should be paid to her Majesty's use,
and "sharply dealt withal."[413] An original method of conversion,
certainly! But it did not succeed. On the 22nd of September, 1590, after
twenty-five years had been spent in the fruitless attempt to convert the
Irish, he writes to Lord Burleigh, detailing the causes of the general
decay of the Protestant religion in Ireland, and suggesting "how the
same may be remedied." He advises that the ecclesiastical commission
should be put in force, "for the people are poor, and fear to be fined."
He requests that he and such commissioners as are "well affected in
religion, may be permitted to imprison and fine all such as are
obstinate and disobedient;" and he has no doubt, that "within a short
time they will be reduced to good conformity." He concludes: "And _this
course of reformation_, the sooner it is begun the better it will
prosper; and the longer it is deferred, the more dangerous it will be."
When remember that such words were written, and such deeds were enacted,
by the head of the Protestant Church in Ireland, and sanctioned by the
head of the Protestant Church in England, they may surely be content to
allow modern controversialists the benefit of their pleasant dream that
Catholic bishops conformed. If they had conformed to such doctrines and
such practice, it can scarcely be seen what advantage the Anglican
Establishment could gain from their parentage.

Seven years later, when the same prelate found that the more the Church
was persecuted the more she increased, he wrote to advise pacification:
"The rebels are increased, and grown insolent. I see no other cure for
this cursed country but pacification, [he could not help continuing]
until, hereafter, when the fury is passed, her Majesty may, with more
convenience, correct the heads of those traitors."[414] The prelate was
ably seconded by the Lord Deputy. Even Sir John Perrot, who has the name
of being one of the most humane of these Governors, could not refrain
from acts of cruelty where Catholics were concerned. On one occasion he
killed fifty persons, and brought their heads home in triumph to
Kilmallock, where he arranged them as a trophy round the cross in the
public square. In 1582 he advised her Majesty "that friars, monks,
Jesuits, priests, nuns, and such like vermin, who openly uphold the
Papacy, should be executed by martial law."[415] The English officers
seem to have rivalled each other in acts of cruelty. One is said to have
tied his victim to a maypole, and then punched out his eyes with his
thumbs.[416] Others amused themselves with flinging up infants into the
air, and catching them on the points of their swords.[417] Francis
Crosby, the deputy of Leix, used to hang men, women, and children on an
immense tree which grew before his door, without any crime being imputed
to them except their faith, and then to watch with delight how the
unhappy infants hung by the long hair of their martyred mothers.[418]

Father Dominic a Rosario, the author of _The Geraldines_, scarcely
exceeded truth when he wrote these memorable words: "This far famed
English Queen has grown drunk on the blood of Christ's martyrs; and,
like a tigress, she has hunted down our Irish Catholics, exceeding in
ferocity and wanton cruelty the emperors of pagan Rome." We shall
conclude this painful subject for the present with an extract from
O'Sullivan Beare: "All alarm from the Irish chieftains being ceased, the
persecution was renewed with all its horrors. A royal order was
promulgated, that all should renounce the Catholic faith, yield up the
priests, receive from the heretical minister the morality and tenets of
the Gospel. Threats, penalties and force were to be employed to enforce
compliance. Every effort of the Queen and her emissaries was directed to
despoil the Irish Catholics of their property, and exterminate them.
More than once did they attempt this, for they knew that not otherwise
could the Catholic religion be suppressed in our island, _unless by the
extermination of those in whose hearts it was implanted_; nor could
their heretical teachings be propagated, while the natives were alive to
detest and execrate them."[419]

In 1561 Sussex returned from England with reinforcements for his army,
and marched to Armagh, where he established himself in the Cathedral.
From thence he sent out a large body of troops to plunder in Tyrone, but
they were intercepted by the redoubtable Shane O'Neill, and suffered so
serious a defeat as to alarm the inhabitants of the Pale, and even the
English nation. Fresh supplies of men and arms were hastily despatched
from England, and the Earls of Desmond, Ormonde, Kildare, Thomond, and
Clanrickarde assembled round the Viceregal standard to assist in
suppressing the formidable foe. And well might they fear the
lion-hearted chieftain! A few years later, Sidney describes him as the
only strong man in Ireland. The Queen was warned, that unless he were
speedily put down, she would lose Ireland, as her sister had lost
Calais. He had gained all Ulster by his sword, and ruled therein with a
far stronger hand, and on a far firmer foundation, than ever any English
monarch had obtained in any part of Ireland. Ulster was his _terra
clausa_; and he would be a bold, or, perhaps I should rather say, a rash
man, who dare intrude in these dominions. He could muster seven thousand
men in the field; and though he seldom hazarded a general engagement, he
"slew in conflicts 3,500 soldiers and 300 Scots of Sidney's army."[420]
The English chronicler, Hooker, who lived in times when the blaze and
smoke of houses and haggards, set on fire by Shane, could be seen even
from Dublin Castle, declares that it was feared he intended to make a
conquest over the whole land.

Even his letters are signed, if not written, in royal style.[421] He
dates one _Ex finibus de Tirconail_, when about to wage war with the
neighbouring sept of O'Donnell; he dates another, _Ex silvis meis_,
when, in pursuance of his Celtic mode of warfare, he hastened into his
woods to avoid an engagement with the English soldiers; he signs himself
_Misi O'Neill_--Me, the O'Neill. As this man was too clever to be
captured, and too brave to be conquered, a plan was arranged, with the
full concurrence of the Queen, by which he might be got rid of by poison
or assassination. Had such an assertion been made by the Irish
annalists, it would have been scouted as a calumny on the character of
"good Queen Bess;" but the evidence of her complicity is preserved in
the records of the State Paper Office. I shall show presently that
attempts at assassination were a common arrangement for the disposal of
refractory Irish chieftains during this reign.

The proposal for this diabolical treachery, and the arrangements made
for carrying it out, were related by Sussex to the Queen. He writes
thus: "In fine, I brake with him to kill Shane, and bound myself by my
oath to see him have a hundred marks of land to him and to his heirs for
reward. He seemed desirous to serve your Highness, and to have the land,
but fearful to do it, doubting his own escape after. I told him the ways
he might do it, and how to escape after with safety; which he offered
and promised to do." The Earl adds a piece of information, which, no
doubt, he communicated to the intended murderer, and which, probably,
decided him on making the attempt: "I assure your Highness he may do it
without danger if he will; and if he will not do what he may in your
service, there will be done to him what others may."[422]

Her Majesty, however, had a character to support; and whatever she may
have privately wished and commanded, she was obliged to disavow
complicity publicly. In two despatches from court she expresses her
"displeasure at John Smith's horrible attempt to poison Shane O'Neill in
his wine." In the following spring John Smith was committed to prison,
and "closely examined by Lord Chancellor Cusake." What became of John is
not recorded, but it is recorded that "Lord Chancellor Cusake persuaded
O'Neill to forget the poisoning." His clan, however, were not so easily
persuaded, and strongly objected to his meeting the Viceroy in person,
or affording him an opportunity which he might not live to forget. About
this time O'Neill despatched a document to the Viceroy for his
consideration, containing a list of "other evill practices devised to
other of the Irish nation within ix or tenn yeares past." The first item
mentions that Donill O'Breyne and Morghe O'Breyne, his son, "required
the benefit of her Majesty's laws, by which they required to be tried,
and thereof was denied;"[423] and that when they came to Limerick under
the protection of the Lord Deputy, they were proclaimed traitors, and
their lands and possessions taken from them. Several other violations of
protection are then enumerated, and several treacherous murders are
recorded, particularly the murder of Art Boy Cavanagh, at Captain
Hearn's house, after he had dined with him, and of Randall Boye's two
sons, who were murdered, one after supper, and the other in the tower,
by Brereton, "who escaped without punishment."

In October, 1562, Shane was invited to England, and was received by
Elizabeth with marked courtesy. His appearance at court is thus
described by Camden, A.D. 1562: "From Ireland came Shane O'Neill, who
had promised to come the year before, with a guard of axe-bearing
galloglasses, their heads bare, their long curling hair flowing on their
shoulders, their linen garments dyed with saffron, with long open
sleeves, with short tunics, and furry cloaks, whom the English wondered
at as much as they do now at the Chinese or American aborigines."
Shane's visit to London was considered of such importance, that we find
a memorandum in the State Paper Office, by "Secretary Sir W. Cecil,
March, 1562," of the means to be used with Shane O'Neill, in which the
first item is, that "he be procured to change his garments, and go like
an Englishman."[424] But this was precisely what O'Neill had no idea of
doing. Sussex appears to have been O'Neill's declared and open enemy.
There is more than one letter extant from the northern chief to the
Deputy. In one of these he says: "I wonder very much for what purpose
your Lordship strives to destroy me." In another, he declares that his
delay in visiting the Queen had been caused by the "amount of
obstruction which Sussex had thrown in his way, by sending a force of
occupation into his territory without cause; for as long as there shall
be one son of a Saxon in my territory against my will, from that time
forth I will not send you either settlement or message, but will send my
complaint through some other medium to the Queen." In writing to the
Baron of Slane, he says that "nothing will please him [the Deputy] but
to plant himself in my lands and my native territory, as I am told every
day that he desires to be styled Earl of Ulster."

The Lord Chancellor Cusack appears, on the contrary, to have constantly
befriended him. On 12th January, 1568, he writes of O'Neill's
"dutifulness and most commendable dealing with the Scots;" and soon
after three English members of the Dublin Government complain that
Cusack[425] had entrapped them into signing a letter to the unruly
chieftain. There is one dark blot upon the escutcheon of this remarkable
man. He had married the daughter of O'Donnell, Lord of one of the
Hebrides. After a time he and his father-in-law quarrelled, and Shane
contrived to capture O'Donnell and his second wife. He kept this lady
for several years as his mistress; and his own wife is said to have died
of shame and horror at his conduct, and at his cruel treatment of her
father. English writers have naturally tried to blacken his character as
deeply as possible, and have represented him as a drunkard and a
profligate; but there appears no foundation for the former accusation.
The foundation for the latter is simply what we have mentioned, which,
however evil in itself, would scarcely appear so very startling to a
court over which Henry VIII. had so long presided.

After many attempts at assassination, _Shane-an-Diomais_ [John the
Ambitious] fell a victim to English treachery. Sir William Piers, the
Governor of Carrickfergus, invited some Scotch soldiers over to Ireland,
and then persuaded them to quarrel with him, and kill him. They
accomplished their purpose, by raising a disturbance at a feast, when
they rushed on the northern chieftain, and despatched him with their
swords. His head was sent to Dublin, and his old enemies took the poor
revenge of impaling it on the Castle walls.

The Earl of Sussex was recalled from Ireland in 1564, and Sir Henry
Sidney was appointed Viceroy. The Earls of Ormonde and Desmond had again
quarrelled, and, in 1562, both Earls were summoned to court by the
Queen. Elizabeth was related to the Butlers through her mother's family,
and used to boast of the loyalty of the house of Ormonde. The Geraldines
adhered to the ancient faith, and suffered for it. A battle was fought
at Affane, near Cappoquin, between the two parties, in which Desmond was
wounded and made prisoner. The man who bore him from the field asked,
tauntingly: "Where is now the proud Earl of Desmond?" He replied, with
equal pride and wit: "Where he should be; upon the necks of the
Butlers!"

[Illustration: GOLD EAR-RING, TORQUE PATTERN, FROM THE COLLECTION OF THE
R.I.A., FOUND AT CASTLEREA, CO. ROSCOMMON.]

[Illustration: KILCOLMAN CASTLE.]

FOOTNOTES:

[402] _Heretics_.--Annals, vol. v. p. 1493.

[403] _Service_.--Shirley's _Original Letters_, p. 47. Dr. Browne gives
an account of his signal failures in attempting to introduce the
Protestant form of prayer in his letters to Cromwell. He says one
prebendary of St. Patrick's "thought scorn to read them." He adds: "They
be in a manner all the same point with me. There are twenty-eight of
them, and yet scarce one that favoureth God's Word."--_State Papers_,
vol. iii. p. 6.

[404] _Pertinacity_.--_The Victoria History of England_, p. 256.

[405] _Pope_.--_Lib. Mun. Hib_. part i. p. 37.

[406] _Captivity_.--Lord Chancellor Cusack addressed a very curious
"Book on the State of Ireland" to the Duke of Northumberland, in 1552,
in which he mentions the fearful condition of the northern counties. He
states that "the cause why the Earl was detained [in Dublin Castle] was
for the wasting and destroying of his county." This Sir Thomas Cusack,
who took a prominent part in public affairs during the reign of Queen
Elizabeth, was a son of Thomas Cusack, of Cassington, in Meath, an
ancient Norman-Irish family, who were hereditary seneschals and sheriffs
of that county.--_Ulster Arch. Jour_. vol. iii p. 51.

[407] _People.--The Irish Reformation_, by the Rev. W. Maziere Brady,
D.D., fifth edition, pp. 32, 33.

[408] _Creed_.--_Cambrensis Eversus_, vol. iii. p. 19.

[409] _Book_.--_Orationes et Motiva_, p. 87.

[410] _Date_.--_Analecta_, p. 387.

[411] _Dr. Moran_.--_Archbishops of Dublin_, p. 68. Further information
may be obtained also in Curry's _Historical Review_.

[412] _Clergyman_.--The Rev. W. Maziere Brady, D.D. Mr. Froude remarks,
in his _History of England_, vol. x. p. 480: "There is no evidence that
any of the bishops in Ireland who were in office at Queen Mary's death,
with the exception of Curwin, either accepted the Reformed Prayer-Book,
or abjured the authority of the Pope." He adds, in a foot-note: "I
cannot express my astonishment at a proposition maintained by Bishop
Mant and others, that whole hierarchy of Ireland went over to the
Reformation with the Government. In a survey of the country supplied to
Cecil in 1571, after death and deprivation had enabled the Government to
fill several sees, the Archbishops Armagh, Tuam, and Cashel, with almost
every one of the Bishops of the respective provinces, are described as
_Catholici et Confederati_. The Archbishop of Dublin, with the Bishops
of Kildare, Ossory, and Ferns, are alone returned as 'Protestantes'"

[413] _Withal_.--Shirley, _Original Letters_, p. 194.

[414] _Traitors_.--Letter of October 18, 1597.--State Paper Office.

[415] _Law_.--Letter to the Queen, in _Government of Ireland under Sir
John Parrot_, p.4.

[416] _Thumbs_.--Despatch of Castlerosse, in State Paper Office, London.

[417] _Swords_.--O'Sullivan Beare, _Hist. Cath_. p. 238.

[418] _Mothers_.--_Ibid_. p. 99.

[419] _Them.--Hist. Cath_. p.133.

[420] _Army_.--See Dr. Stuart's _History of Armagh_, p. 261.

[421] _Style_.--In one of the communications from Sussex to O'Neill, he
complains of the chieftain's letters as being "_nimis superbe
scriptae_."--State Papers for 1561.

[422] _May_.--Moore's _History of Ireland_, vol. iv. p.33.

Copyright (c) 2007. bestextbooks.com. All rights reserved.

Christopher Morley - "Plum Pudding"

Coningsby Dawson - "Out To Win"

Various - "Punch, or the London Charivari, Vol. 1, October 23, 1841"

Amelia Edith Huddleston Barr - "Scottish sketches"

Murder One closing so did we commit this crime?
Articles published by guardian.co.uk Books

Poetry Workshop creature features

For many years my local corner shop displayed a large sign in its window telling local residents to "use us or lose us!" It always looked a rather toothless threat to me. After all, if I didn't use them, what difference would it make to me if they weren't there? And surely a corner shop, one that had been there for years, would have enough customers to survive without recourse to such apocalyptic warning? But it didn't and was soon converted into flats.

This community shop was destroyed not so much by the pressures of the supermarkets or people's commuting patterns, but simply by customer apathy. It's something to think about as crime writers and readers across the world mourn the imminent passing of Maxim Jakubowski's celebrated Charing Cross Road bookshop in London, Murder One.

Apathy is a strange word to connect to a bookstore that thrives on passion. It's noticeable when you walk through the door, when you speak to the friendly, knowledgeable staff, when you look at the shelves and see the vast range of titles on offer. This isn't your regular kind of bookstore: the first time I visited spent a whole lunch break looking up and down, from floor to ceiling from table to table; it was an hour that changed my perception of both crime writing and of bookselling.

Murder One was – and for a few weeks will remain – a shop that took crime seriously. Not in the sense that it intellectualised it, or made unsubstantiated claims for its importance, but in the way that it treated crime writing with the respect it was due. With a genre that has so many off-shoots, branches and sub-genres, it took a shop of Murder One's calibre to show just how diverse, interesting and mentally stimulating crime could be – far more than the guilty pleasure I had, until then, considered it.

Thanks to judicious recommendations, enticing table displays and hours of foraging among the stacks, I discovered writers that I would never have picked up, let alone read. You could always get the latest blockbuster, but delve a little deeper and you'd find books that were not stocked anywhere else, novels that, like the perfect crime, were hidden from public view. The Martin Beck novels by Sjöwall & Wahlöö – probably my favourite sequence of novels in any genre – were introduced to me via Murder One, as were Kem Nunn, Sue Grafton, and Henning Mankell. It's also the staff of Murder One who piqued my interest in the inimitable Fred Vargas, and I can't thank them enough for the introduction.

Inclusive and without snobbery, Murder One amply demonstrated that the best bookshops are places not just of commerce, but of community; places that make feel you belong. It's the kind of store that bibliophiles dream about: well-stocked, well-staffed and shabby enough to lose days browsing within. It's just unfortunate that such shops don't have enough paying customers to keep them afloat, or that these customers visit all too infrequently – something of which I'm certainly guilty.

These kinds of shops are facing a long, bloody battle – and one which, without significant reinforcements, they are likely to lose. As we hear of the travesty of another brilliant independent going down, we'll mourn the loss, wring our hands and damn Amazon and the supermarkets and Waterstone's. Yet perhaps the most important detail we'll probably keep under wraps: the last time we actually spent any money there.

Murder One closing its doors for the final time is undoubtedly a .38 shell for independent bookshops, but whether it's body blow or a warning shot all depends upon us, the consumers. No one, no matter how iconic or established, can exist on fond memories alone: just ask Woolworths. Use these shops now, because it doesn't take a master sleuth to deduce what will happen if we don't.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

In focus: Liz Jobey looks at the work of photographic printer Richard Benson
From winged wonders to creepy crawlies, Mark Doty is impressed by the creatures that emerged from his workshop on encountering animals