the election of L’Isle Adam, D’Amaral had asserted he would be the last Grand-Master of Rhodes. On this testimony he also was subjected to torture, which he bore with unflinching fortitude, asserting that he had nothing to reveal, and that at the close of a life spent in the service of the Order, he would not disgrace his career by the utterance of a falsehood so as to save his aged limbs from the rack.
His firmness and constancy did not avail to save him from those who were clamorous for his death. Diaz, of whose guilt there could be no doubt, was hanged and quartered on the 6th November. D’Amaral, whose rank forbade so degrading a death, was sentenced to be beheaded, lie was stripped of his habit in the church of St. John on the 7th November, and, on the following day, executed in the great square.
Of the two contemporary writers who have given accounts of this siege, both of whom were eye-witnesses of the events they record, one, the chevalier de Bourbon, asserts the guilt of the chancellor without doubt, and may fairly be taken as the mouthpiece of the general opinion within the town. The other, Fontanus, who was one of the judges appointed to investigate the charge, is very reticent and obscure on the point. A careful study of his work leads to the impression that he found no proofs of guilt in D’Amaral. Never, perhaps, was man condemned on weaker evidence. The deposition of his own servant, who had been detected in a treasonable act, and might naturally try to save himself by fixing the guilt on another, should have been received with grave suspicion. The testimony of the Greek priest was absolutely worthless. Why, if he had previously witnessed the transmission of treasonable communications, did he not denounce the criminals sooner, when treason was known to be fraught with such imminent danger? The explanation which D’Amaral gave of this man’s evidence was probably correct, viz., that it was the effect of spite, owing to his having had to find fault with the looseness of the priests’ life. The improbability of a man in the position of the chancellor risking his life and reputation by employing a servant in such open treachery seems too great for the fact to be readily accepted. Much has, of recent years, been said as to the guilt
