# Confiscation in Irish history/Chapter 6

CHAPTER VI
THE RESTORATION SETTLEMENT
The restoration of the Monarchy seemed to promise to the ever optimistic Irish the restoration of their lands.
Of the three kingdoms ruled by Charles I. Ireland had the best record for loyalty. Scotland had begun the armed opposition to his rule, and had persisted in it until his execution had shocked the kingdom back to its allegiance to his son—an allegiance grudgingly rendered, and hampered round with conditions. And a couple of decisive victories had brought almost the whole nation to submission to the usurping English government.
The majority of the English nation had revolted from its allegiance, and they were Englishmen who had cut off the head of the father, and put a price on the head of the son.
But the Irish, who encouraged by the example of the Scots had taken up arms in 1641 to redress their grievances, had always protested their loyalty to the King. They had taken steps to come to an agreement with him in 1643, and in ​1648 and 1649 a solemn treaty had reconciled the majority of the nation with their sovereign.
When that sovereign had perished on the scaffold the whole body of the Catholics of Ireland had rallied to the defence of his son. For over four years they had maintained his cause, and had only laid down their arms when all hope of success had vanished, and the greater part of the population had perished.
The vengeance which the triumphant English Republican Party had taken has been set out in the last chapter.
Everything then led the Irish to look upon the restoration of the King as full of promise for themselves.
At the outset these hopes were to a certain extent realised. Those who had followed the King into exile on the Continent were enabled to return. The landowners who had been confined to the west of the Shannon were now permitted to reside without restriction anywhere within the island. A large number of dispossessed landowners obtained letters from the King ordering the immediate restoration of their estates; and in some cases, where these estates had not actually been set out to any Cromwellian soldier or adventurer, they obtained possession; in other cases the intruder was willing to hand over the property in return for payment.
​Whether Charles ever really intended to keep faith with the Irish can never be ascertained. The Protestant leaders, Coote, Orrery and others, implacable enemies of the Irish, had made it a condition in negotiating with the King for his restoration, that they should keep the lands they had acquired in Ireland.
The King, from Breda in April 1660, promised this, thus giving, as Lord Chancellor Eustace wrote to Ormond, the estates of those who had fought for him to those who had fought against him.
In November 1660 the King published a Declaration for the Settlement of Ireland. The gist of this document was that the Cromwellians were to keep what they had got; that a new class of Protestants was to be provided for out of Irish land, namely Royalist Protestant officers who had served the King before June 5th, 1649; and that those Irish who had been deprived of their lands merely on the score of their religion or of their attachment to the King, as well as those who were entitled to the benefits of the peaces of 1648 and 1649 were to be restored to what they had lost.
The only drawback to a settlement on these lines was, as Ormond cynically pointed out, that it would be necessary to discover a new Ireland, for the old would not serve to satisfy these engagements.
According to the King's declaration three ​classes of Irish landowners were particularly entitled to redress. The first were those who had never resisted the authority of Charles I. or his son, but who had been expelled from Ireland or deprived of all or some of their property on account of their noted loyalty, or because, being Catholics, they had failed to show "Constant Good Affection" to the parliament.
In the first sub-division were included great noblemen such as Ormond and Clanrickard; in the second sub-division were the townsmen of Dublin, Drogheda (if any of these survived), Cork, Kinsale and Youghal, infants (such as the Brownes and Mac Carthys of Killarney) and many isolated landowners in all parts of the country.
Then there were those who, although they had joined in the rising of 1641, or in the subsequent Confederation of Kilkenny, had yet singularly deserved of the King by their efforts to bring about a reconciliation between him and his Catholic subjects, or by the zeal with which they had fought under his banners against the usurper. Men such as Lord Muskerry and the Marquis of Antrim may be taken as examples of the former; the citizens of Limerick, Wexford and Galway as examples of the latter.
And to all of these—the vast majority of the nation—Charles was bound by two solemn treaties, by which first his father, and then he himself had fully pardoned those who had taken part in the ​rising of 1641, received them once again into favour and protection, reversed all outlawries and attainders, and confirmed them in their estates.
And the third class, a section of those secured by treaty, had even a stronger claim. These were the "Ensignmen," those who refusing to accept the republic, or falling within the classes excluded from pardon by the Cromwellian government, had followed the royal ensigns on the continent of Europe. The shifty Lord of Inchiquin among the Protestants, and innumerable Catholics were in this class.
All these Charles was bound in honour, in justice, and by a solemn treaty, to restore; and all these he did in his Declaration explicitly promise to restore to their inheritance. At first Charles seems to have had some intention to abide by his word. Large numbers of royal letters are extant ordering the restoration of individuals such as Darcy of Plattin, and Talbot of Malahide, or of whole classes such as the citizens of Cork, and Galway.
But the Cromwellians in possession, equally protected by the King's declaration, held on to what they had got. Only in those few cases where no soldier or adventurer was in possession did these "letterees," as they were called, obtain any benefit from the King's letters.
To carry out the Declaration thirty-six ​commissioners were named. They began their work in March 1661. They were all in possession of lands taken from the Irish; hence they can hardly have inspired the latter with much confidence. They seem to have done little or nothing to carry out the King's intentions; in fact "their partiality and corruption" to use his own words, "had discredited the Declaration itself."
It became evident that an Act of Parliament alone could bring about some form of settlement.
Writs were accordingly issued for the election of an Irish Parliament. One of its first tasks, and its greatest, was to deal with the land. As the only freeholders, except in four counties beyond the Shannon, were Protestants, and as all Catholics had been cleared from the corporate towns, only one Catholic was elected to the House of Commons, and he was not allowed to take his seat.
From the House of Lords the old nobility were practically all excluded, on the plea that they had been attainted and outlawed in 1641 and 1642, and that these attainders had not yet been formally reversed. It was true that the treaties of 1648 and 1649 had provided for the reversal of these attainders; and that most of these peers had ​since given distinguished proofs of their loyalty. Protestant clamour however proved too strong and only a few Catholic peers were able to take their seats.
From a parliament thus composed the Irish had little to hope. But in conformity with Poyning's Law the Act in its main features was to be settled in London by the Privy Council; and here the Irish hoped to obtain a favourable hearing
Unfortunately for them if justice was on their side, force was on the side of their opponents. It soon became plain that one or the other interest must be sacrificed; the question was who? The Catholics pleaded solemn treaties, the plighted word of two Kings, their eminent services and sufferings. The Protestants were armed; they held all the garrisons; and all the administrative posts. They threatened an appeal to the sword.
The Irish, too, were unfortunate in their advocates. Sir Nicholas Plunkett and others, men more convinced of the justice of their cause than of the need of tact to overcome the prejudices against it.
Ormond, writing to Eustace, says that he "fears the liberty allowed to the Irish to speak for themselves will turn to their prejudice by the unskilful use they make of it, in justifying themselves, instructing the King and his Council in what is good for them, and recriminating of others."
Carte expatiates at considerable length on the want of prudence on the part of the Irish in presenting their claims, and contrasts it with the ​skill with which their opponents managed their business.
These opponents too had all the advantages that money confers. From twenty to thirty thousand pounds was judiciously laid out in bribes in England: the impoverished Catholics could not employ this weapon.
The great Catholic lords such as Muskerry, Clanrickard and Antrim, who were in close touch with the King and secure of restitution gave no help. The Duke of York and Clarendon were openly hostile. Ormond—the unkind deserter of his loyal friends—secured every possible benefit for himself; but in spite of the eulogies of Carte it is plain that he left the greater part of those whom he had deluded into fighting under his banners to starve. The "new interest" in Ireland was implacable in its hostility.
As to English feeling it was entirely against the Irish. Wild tales of the atrocities at the outbreak of the rising were circulated and believed. According to Carte the new interest succeeded by the pretended discovery of sham plots in exciting a widespread feeling in England of the danger of any concessions. Clarendon declared that all parties in that country were "united and agreed in one unhappy extreme, that is their implacable malice to the Irish, in so much as they concurred in their ​desire that they might gain nothing by the King's return."
As for the King himself—good easy-going man—he had one fixed principle, a determination not to set out again on his travels. He personally attended most of the deliberations of the Privy Council; but he soon wearied of the interminable discussions. The balance began to turn decidedly against the Irish.
And it must be admitted that the Protestants, rebels though they had been, had some powerful arguments to use. They had recalled the King without, as far as was publicly known, demanding from him any conditions. They could point out that the interests of England seemed to demand that the Irish should be kept permanently in the powerless state to which Cromwell had reduced them. And they could point out that the Irish in defending the royal cause were urged not so much by loyalty as by self-interest. What they had aimed at, it was said, was the complete triumph of Catholicism, and it was only necessity which had made them unite with the King against the common enemy the Parliament of England.
Chance placed an important weapon in their hands. The Protestant agents were able to produce at the Council Board an original copy of the instructions issued by the Supreme Council of the ​Confederates early in 1648 to the Bishop of Ferns and Sir Nicholas Plunkett who were being sent on a mission to the Pope. In this the Pope was asked to be mediator between the Irish and Queen Henrietta Maria, then in France, and the Prince now Charles II. This seems a sufficiently harmless mission, but there was a further instruction that if all else failed the Pope was to be asked to act as Protector of Ireland. This document was signed by Plunkett himself. At the same time were produced drafts, in Plunkett's handwriting, of instructions to envoys to Spain and France similarly asking for mediation, and in the last resort protection. At the time the Queen and probably also the Prince must have been aware of these steps, and certainly they were taken as much in their interests as in that of the Irish. But technically the Irish were in the wrong. Charles professed the greatest indignation. Plunkett was debarred from all access to the King and Court, and the Privy Council on March 14th, 1661—2, decided that no further hearing was to be given to any petitions or remonstrances from the Irish.
The main provisions of the Bill for the Settlement of Ireland were then settled by the Privy Council and transmitted to Ireland, and, in May, 1662, passed by both houses.
The victory of the Protestant party is fully apparent in the preamble to the Act of Settlement, which is such a remarkable presentation of the Protestant case that the more material parts deserve quotation in full.
​This preamble begins:—
"Whereas an unnatural insurrection did break forth against your Majestie's royal father of ever blessed memorie, his crown and dignitie, in this your Majestie's kingdom of Ireland, upon the 23 of October, in the year of our Lord God 1641 and manifest itself by the murther and destructions of many thousands of your said Majestie's good and loyal subjects; which afterwards universally spreading and diffusing itself over the whole kingdom, settled into and became a formed and allmost national rebellion of the Irish papists … the which Irish papists … did first assume, usurp and exercise the power of life and death, make peace and war, levie and coin money, and many other acts of sovereign authoritie, treating with forreign princes and potentates for their government and protection, and afterwards acted under a forreign authoritie … and whereas Almightie God hath given your Majestic, by and through your said English and Protestant subjects, absolute victorie and conquest over the said Irish popish rebels and enemies, so as they, their lives, liberties and estates are now wholly at your Majestie's disposition by the laws of this kingdom: and whereas several of your Majestie's subjects, by whom, as instruments, the said rebels were totally subdued, did in the time of your Majestie's absence beyond the seas, for supplie of the then pressing necessities, and to prevent the further desolation of this your Majestie's kingdom, enquire into the authors, contrivers and abettors of the said rebellion and war, and after much deliberation among themselves, and advice ​from others had thereupon, did dispossess such of the said popish Irish rebels of their lands, tenements and hereditaments, as they found guiltie of, and to have been engaged in the said rebellion or war aforementioned, and did withal distribute and set out the said lands to be possessed by sundrie persons, etc., etc.
"And forasmuch as the rapines, depredations and massacres committed by the said Irish and popish rebels and enemies are not only well known to this present parliament, but are notorious to the whole world; and lastly, for that the said rebels, since their throwing off your royal Father's and your Majestie's government, are become subdued and conquered enemies, and have justly forfeited all their rights, titles and estates in this kingdom; it is therefore enacted … that all honors, mannors, houses, places, lands, tenements and hereditaments … in this kingdom, which at any time from and after the said 23rd day of October, in the year of our Lord 1641 were seized or sequestered into the hands or to the use of his late Majestic … or which were otherwise disposed of to any person for adventures arrears, or whereof the adventurers, officers, or soldiers or any transplanted persons or any other person or persons whatsoever, upon account of the said rebellion or war, were in seizin, possession or occupation by themselves, their tenants, etc. on May 7th, 1659, or which were given out or set apart to anyone in consideration of money or provisions advanced, etc., etc.
"Are and shall be, and are hereby declared, deemed and adjudged, as from the said 23rd day ​of October, 1641, forfeited … and they hereby are from the said 23rd day of October vested and settled in the real and actual possession and seizin of your Majestie, your heires and successors, without any office or inquisition thereof found, or hereafter to be found, notwithstanding that the persons who were the former proprietors, or reputed proprietors of the said estates, or anie of them, are not hereby, or have not been heretofore attainted for and by reason of the said most hainous and unnatural rebellion and war."
In other words the fact that the Cromwellians had dispossessed anyone of his estate was to be taken as proof that the dispossessed one was a rebel, and was to vest his estate in the Crown.
Yet, in spite of this unpromising preamble, the Act itself, in appearance at least, was not so very unfavourable to the Irish. From the vesting clauses were excepted the estates of all innocent Protestants and Papists, and that irrespective of whether they had recognised the usurping government and sued out decrees in Connaught and Clare. They were to be restored to all their former estates.
Further the Act confirmed to the Irish the benefits of the peace of 1648. But here a distinction was made. Such of them as had taken lands west of the Shannon in lieu of a proportion of their former properties were to keep the lands thus acquired, and to forfeit all claim to their original properties. But those of them who had never ​sued out decrees for such lands were to be restored to what they had been deprived of. And one class was specially mentioned as deserving of favour; those namely who had followed the King's ensigns abroad. Some 220 of this class are mentioned by name. Among them w^ere Lord Magennis of Iveagh, Lord Castleconnell, Colonel Charles Mac Carthy Reagh, Captain Hugh O' Conor Don of Ballintubber, and a number of others w^ho had been notoriously participators in the rising of 1641.
Then too any transplanted Irish not in the foregoing class who had received lands were to be confirmed in them. Finally there was a list of persons specially deserving of the King's favour, Nominees as they were called, including four earls, eight viscounts, six barons and twenty other persons of position.
Furthermore there were various provisoes in the Act for the restoration or security of certain favoured individuals, and a second list of "Nominees" eighteen in number to be restored on account of their eminent sufferings as opponents of the Papal Nuncio Rinuccini.
Now in one or other of these various categories by far the greater number of Irish landowners must have been included. Nearly the whole nation ​had ultimately accepted the peace of 1648. Such of them as had not explicitly done so had in many cases served the King abroad, and so might claim restoration as ensignmen.
Of the original movers in the rising of 1641 a very large number had surrendered to the Cromwellian government on articles which entitled them to a proportion of their estates west of the Shannon. In particular those Irish of the Leinster army who had laid down their arms in May, 1652, at Kilkenny, and who had ultimately been ordered one-third of their former estates in Connaught, included most of those lords of the Pale who had been foremost in the confederacy with the Ulster Irish in 1641.
Even the son of Lord Gormanston, the leader on whose head a price had been set in 1641, was one of the Nominees specially mentioned as to be restored.
As some thirty thousand Irish had taken service abroad, most of them under the King's ensigns, the restoration of the "Ensignmen" would have meant the restoration in addition to those specially named, of a very large number of landowners. But, as was soon apparent, the benefit which the Irish were to reap from the Act was dependent on how the Act was carried out, or rather on whether it was possible to carry it out at all. And it was soon apparent, as must have been known all along to Orrery and others, that it was quite impossible to carry it out if the adventurers and soldiers were to keep possession of what they had got. This ​was provided for by Clauses VI. and VII. of the Act. They were to keep v/hatever they were in possession of on May 7th, 1659, and furthermore all the corporate towns, certain counties, and other lands were set apart to pay the arrears of the "forty-nine" officers as those Protestants who had served the King as officers before 1649 were called.
As to the restoration of the Irish, it was provided that "innocent Protestants" and "innocent Papists" were to be immediately restored, and that in restoring them those who had taken no lands in Connaught or Clare were to have precedence over those who had taken such lands. Adventurers and soldiers as well as transplanted persons removed to make way for such "innocents'" were to be reprised, that is to get lands of equivalent value immediately after removal.
But the remainder of the restorable Irish were to get back their lands only after the Cromwellian in possession should be reprised. This was the fundamental condition, which wrecked the whole scheme. For, in spite of what had been represented to the King, there was no stock of land available out of which sufficient reprisals could be made. And what little there was was reduced by the most appalling jobbery and corruption. Thus James Duke of York was granted all the lands that had been set out to the regicides, computed at 120,000 acres, largely made up of some of the best lands in Tipperary and elsewhere. Some of the estates thus given to him had actually belonged to ​men who had served under him abroad. It does not appear that he ever took any steps to compensate these unfortunates.
Then the Secretary of State, Bennet, afterwards Lord Arlington, was given—apparently by the consent of the agents of both parties anxious to secure his favour— the lands of Lord Clanmahere, the two baronies of Upper Phillipstown and Portnahinch amounting to over 60,000 English acres. The Earl of Leicester, nominal Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in 1641 was allowed arrears to the amount of £50,000 to be satisfied out of the corporate towns, although he had never set foot in Ireland.
Thus in practice only the Innocents, and those whose lands were not in actual possession of adventurers or soldiers had any real prospect of restoration, except by special favour.
The Act also provided that no innocent Papist, no matter how eminent his loyalty, was to be restored to any property within the walls of any corporate town, so that these might forever remain strongholds of the English interest. This hit with special severity the inhabitants of the five towns Dublin, Drogheda, Cork, Youghal and Kinsale, who had never swerved from their allegiance. ​It was provided that the townsmen were to receive compensation as near to the towns as possible, and furthermore that the King could by letter, restore any individual to his property within a corporate town if he desired. To his credit it would seem that Charles took advantage of this clause to restore a very large number of townsmen, although his efforts in this respect were thwarted as far as possible by the Dublin authorities.
The Books of Survey and Distribution show that the chief of the old inhabitants of Cork and Kinsale recovered the lands which they had held in and round the liberties of these towns. But the grant to the Earl of Leicester shows that the poorer citizens of Cork, at any rate, lost their houses within the walls. It is doubtful if they ever got reprisals elsewhere. Even in the case of a Cork family of wealth and influence, the Sarsfields of Sarsfield's Court, the Cromwellian in possession managed to hold his ground until 1681.
To carry out the Act a Court of Claims was set up. The members, seven in number, were all Englishmen, but apparently were unconnected with any of the English interest in Ireland.
​They opened their court on September 20th, 1662; but did not begin to hear claims until January 13th, 1663. The preceding months appear to have been spent in settling their procedure and in other formal matters.
This delay had fatal results for the Irish. The "Instructions" embodied in the Act of Settlement had specified certain dates before which the various restorable and reprisable classes were to have their claims satisfied. As the Act, though passed in May, did not obtain the Royal Assent until September, the dates first specified could not be adhered to, and they were extended. These clauses were inserted apparently to secure the speedy restoration of the interested parties. But, as interpreted by the lawyers, they proved the undoing of most of them. Innocents for instance were to have their claims heard and determined before August 21st, 1663—twelve lunar months after the opening of the Court; and when that date was reached the Court held that they had no power to hear any further claims.
Five precious months of the twelve had been wasted, and there were thousands waiting to be heard.
Rigorous conditions had been laid down which it was hoped would make it impossible for the vast majority of Catholics to obtain restoration as "innocents." For instance the condition that to have enjoyed an estate in the rebel's quarters was a bar to innocence would have excluded Lady Thurles, Ormond's mother, whose devotion to the ​English cause had been acknowledged by the chief Parliamentary officers. The Lord Fitzwilliam of Merrion was decreed "nocent" because he had written a letter from Paris to the Confederate authorities "altogether for our service," as Charles himself said. He had never done anything against the English interest and had in fact only been in Ireland for a short period between 1645 and '47, and then on the King's service. Cromwell had allowed him to return in or about 1655, and had allowed him part of his estate.
Lord Dunsany in March, 1642, had written to Ormond an abject letter totally disclaiming all sympathy with the proceedings of the Lords of the Pale. He had never "corresponded with their councils, meetings, parleys or camps, other than two letters which were sent to the Lords Justices." He declared he was an Englishman born, the eleventh of his family, none of whom ever had been disloyal, four of them killed in the behalf of the Crown of England, the rest all wounded except himself and his father, "having no occasion to be put to the same." He was firm in his resolve "rather to be hanged with the imagination that I died a loyal subject and a lover of the prosperity of England, than to live in the quiet possession of all the north of Ireland." He had escaped to the English quarters as soon as he could. But this had not saved his estate from Cromwell and now he was decreed "nocent" for having lived for a time in the Irish quarters.
​Sir Thomas Sherlock who had sided with the English in the early days of the rising had been forced to surrender his castle to the Irish forces, and had been imprisoned by them. He signed the roll of Association of the Confederates to obtain his release; then escaped to Dublin and had been allowed in 1647 by Jonas to reside in England. But having signed the roll he could not claim innocence.
In one way or another all avenues towards innocence seemed securely barred. And it was further provided that no one could be restored as innocent to any lands which he claimed through a nocent predecessor in title. But luckily for many of the Irish the framers of this clause forgot that the issue of a tenant for life were held to claim not from their father but from the original donor. In this way the heir of Rory or Roger More of Balyna, the prime contriver of the whole insurrection, actually recovered his estate.
Then, too, although the would be innocent had to appear as plaintiff, the interested Cromwellian had to produce proofs of his guilt before he could be declared nocent. So where there was no Cromwellian in possession the case often went by default; and in any case proof of events which had happened twenty years ago was not ​always easy. Sometimes, also, hostile witnesses could be bribed not to appear, or the Cromwellian in possession could be bought out on easy terms. So, contrary to the expectations of the Protestant interest, of those whose claims were heard during the first three months after the Court opened the vast majority were restored to their estates.
Of course clamour at once arose. Already in February the Irish House of Commons had passed a resolution condemning the procedure of the Commissioners and virtually charging them with a design to destroy the English Protestant interest. This only brought down on them a severe rebuke from the King.
So they fell back on another resource, an appeal to arms. A plot to seize the Castle and overturn the government was hatched by the extreme Cromwellians. The Covenant was again to be set up and the Protestants secured in their lands. The conspiracy was discovered and three of the ringleaders were duly hanged. But they did not die in vain. Already, before their execution, the government had begun to yield, and were considering a new Bill designed to amend in the Protestant interest the Act for the Settlement of Ireland.
The main objections to this Bill are to be found in a memorial from the Commissioners for the execution of the Act of Settlement themselves. ​Englishmen and Protestants as they were, yet once put in a judicial position the tendency implanted in the Englishman's mind which makes even the most partisan of advocates incline to subordinate his own prejudices to the demands of law, led them to point out that the new Bill proposed to take away (1) the estates of all innocent papists yet unheard, (2) of those transplanted, (3) of the ensignmen, (4) of those claiming the articles of peace, (5) the power given to the King of restoring papists to houses and lands in corporations.
They had applied for an Act to extend the time during which they could carry out the provisions of the Act; instead of which the Bill now under consideration was transmitted.
The time limited for hearing the claims of innocents expired on August 21st, 1663, and the great question for the Irish was would it be extended.
During the seven preceding months 820 cases had been heard. In about 112 of these the verdict had been "nocent," thus leaving 708 cases in which either a decree of innocence was issued, or the plaintiff left to the ordinary law courts.
​These decrees apparently included innocent Protestants, and the number of these, as we know from a statement of the Commissioners, was 168.
Therefore about 540 Catholics, at the outside, were decreed innocent. It was notorious that there were numerous others whose claims had not been heard. The Commissioners themselves declared that they had heard the claims of all who had never taken lands west of the Shannon, and of one-sixth of those who had. If this is accurate there can have been at the outside only 1,500 claimants unheard. But Prendergast cites cases of claimants unheard though they had taken no lands from Cromwell. The Irish said the number of those unheard was 8000. Sir Heneage Finch, ordered in 1670 to report to the King on the whole matter, declares that over 4000 had not been heard. The exact numbers therefore cannot be determined. Many of those unheard, too, were persons whose innocence would have been hard to prove, and who therefore had not been eager to press their claims. But among them were numerous widows and orphans, persons without ​influence to secure an early hearing, and without money to support them while waiting trial. Of this class it is to be feared that most of them perished of want, or sank into the ranks of the peasantry.
Clarendon says that in the proceedings of the Court of Claims there were such forgeries and perjuries as were never heard of among Christians; but he adds that in this respect the English were as bad as the Irish.
Petty asserts that of those decreed innocent not one in twenty really was so. But, as is often the case, Petty's statement will not bear examination. The innocence of the citizens of Dublin, Cork, etc. was notorious; there were special clauses in their favour in the Act itself. In their case the decree can only have been a mere formality to be granted as soon as the claimant had established his identity. Minors and persons who had been active from the beginning on the royal side were in exactly the same case. And the more confident of his case, and the more able to secure powerful patronage a claimant was, the more he would be anxious to get a hearing and the more capable of securing it.
In spite of the representations of the Commissioners the time for hearing claims to innocence was not extended. They could not for various reasons depending on technicalities in the Act proceed to hear the claims of the ensignmen and those who came under the articles of peace; none of these ​therefore could be restored if this involved the dispossession of any adventurer or soldier.
In the meantime a new wrangle went on before the Privy Council as to the provisions to be embodied in the new Act.
The first draft of the Amending Bill which was sent over to England was entirely disapproved of by the King and Council. Orders were given to prepare a new draft, and this was largely drawn up by Ormond. It was sent to England in September; but was not discussed at the Council until November. Whether the draft first sent over and rejected contained clauses extending the time for hearing claims to innocence and for restoring the other classes mentioned in the Act of Settlement is not clear from Carte's narrative. That a draft Bill had been framed containing such clauses is clear from a letter from Lord Kingston to Secretary Bennet in January, 1663.
The Commissioners for the execution of that Act were in favour of such clauses. Reasons why the periods should be extended are given in an unsigned document in the Calendar of State Papers, 1669—70, with Addenda. The date of this appears to be about September, 1663, and it may have come from Winston Churchill. It says: "It is evident that the expressing of the time was for hastening their restitution, and though the ​time be passed, yet it is plain their right is served" (query saved?) "and preserved by the Act as there is no negative word in the Act to forbid the hearing or determination of them after the day limited is passed."
Ormond in preparing the new draft did not think it proper to insert a clause for the relief of the unheard innocents: he proposed that the Lord Lieutenant and the Irish Council should have power to declare persons innocent and to restore them; acting, however, strictly in conformity with the conditions laid down in the Act of Settlement. This proposal was rejected by the English Privy Council.
This body took the Bill into consideration in November, 1663, and allowed a hearing to the agents of all the various interests. If the draft before them had any clauses in favour of innocents or article men such clauses were soon dropped. They were absolutely against the Protestant interest. And they were not looked on with favour by the chief men of the Catholic party, mostly in the class of "nominees," restorable therefore only after the Cromwellian possessor should be reprised, and outside the category of innocents. Innocents were to be restored before reprisal; then the persons removed to make way for them were to be reprised; then, and only then, were reprisals to be sought for to permit of the removal of the soldiers and undertakers from the lands of the nominees. And so, as we are told by Sir Heneage Finch, the great men among the Catholics threw over their less influential countr3mien, and made no real effort to secure an extension of the periods.
​It was pretended that the course most favourable to the Irish was to name in the Bill those persons who were to be restored. The foolish optimism of the Irish had, at the beginning, led them to ask for quite impossible conditions; now their agents, while abandoning the mass of their countrymen, hoped for the individual restoration of themselves and of their friends. The Calendars of State Papers are full of petitions setting forth the causes of various individuals who hoped for inclusion in the favoured few.
The Viscount Magennis of Iveagh, one of the ensignmen, had lost 45,000 acres.
Captain Daniel O'Sullivan Bere, lord of Bere and Bantry, prayed for restoration to the vast estates confirmed by Elizabeth and James to his grandfather and father for their services against the famous Donnell O'Sullivan of Dunboy. His property had not been set out to an adventurer or soldier, and he had obtained letters ordering his restoration. He had been given possession. But in spite of this Sir W. Petty and others deriving title from one Walters, "who is no adventurer or soldier, but got a great part of petitioner's estate from Cromwell as a gratuity for transporting and selling your Majesty's subjects beyond seas," had possessed themselves of his estate. He prays a clause restoring him.
​But Petty kept a firm hold on the vast tracts he had acquired in Kerry and elsewhere. They duly passed on the death of Petty's sons, to his only daughter who married the head of one of the oldest Anglo-Norman families in Ireland, Thomas Fitzmaurice, twenty-first Lord of Kerry. Their descendant, the Marquis of Lansdowne, holds them to the present day. O'Sullivan Bere never recovered an acre.
As a final result of all petitions we find in the Act a number of clauses, often contradictory, restoring various persons. Some, such as Garret Moore of the Co. Mayo, and Colonel John Kelly of Skryne, were to be restored before reprisals; others, such as Lord Gormanston and Grace of Courtstown, only after the reprisal of those in possession. Some, such as Lords Mountgarrett and Mayo, were to be restored at once to their principal messuage and to such of their lands as were not in possession of any adventurer or soldier, and to the rest after reprisals. The son of Sir Thomas Sherlock was to recover his principal messuage and half his father's property at once; the rest after reprisals; Lord Dunsany was to get his castle and one-third of his lands before and the rest after reprisals.
Arguments continued as to how best to provide reprisals. Each party put forward proposals. As the discussion proceeded gross frauds on the part of the adventurers were discovered which ​made them more pliable in their demands. All the different parties came to see that compromise was necessary. The scheme finally adopted is said by Carte to have come from the Irish agents. By it the various Protestant interests gave up one-third of what they possessed in May, 1659, or of—in the case of the forty-nine officers, etc.—what arrears were due to them. This third was to provide for the necessary reprisals.
This scheme was adopted by the Privy Council, and in September, 1665, the Bill was transmitted to Ireland. After keen debates in both houses and much opposition from the adventurers it was passed and received the Royal Assent in December.
That the Act of Explanation failed to satisfy any of the contending parties is perhaps the best thing that can be said in its favour. It is sometimes contended that it was unfavourable to the Protestant interest, and the picturesque account to be found in the Calendar of State Papers, 1663—1665 of the final scene in the House of Commons, where members in the fading light confronted one another with half-drawn swords, proves that this was the view taken of it at the time by the more stalwart Cromwellians. But although they had to make substantial sacrifices, the detriment caused to their interests by this Act ​was as nothing compared to the ruin it brought on most of the Irish.
For it excluded once for all from all hope of restoration the unheard innocents, those claiming the articles of peace, and the Ensignmen except such few of this last class as had been lucky enough to recover possession before the passing of the Act. This had happened only in those few cases where the lands had not actually been set out to any Cromwellian. Furthermore it deprived the King of the power of restoring innocents to their property in Corporations given him by the Act of Settlement. As a slight set off those of the Irish who had obtained Royal letters of restoration, and had been able to profit by them through the accident that there was no Cromwellian in possession, were now confirmed, provided they had been in actual possession on August 23rd, 1663. In this way, for example, the Mac Gillicuddy of the Reeks recovered his vast tracts of mountain and bogland. It is true that the confirmation was to extend only to the principal seat and 2,000 acres; but in this case the King ordered that as the land was so poor the computation was to be made "by a reduced column," i.e., casting in many acres for one to make it valuable.
There was a further concession or what was meant as such. Twenty-two persons were to be restored to their principal seat and to 2000 acres adjoining provided that they had had so much in ​1641. But by the same clause six peers and twenty-seven others of the fifty-six nominees specially mentioned for restoration in the Act of Settlement were now to get only their principal seat and 2000 acres, and this only after reprisals. Amongst the new names were those of Lord Iveagh, and Lord Bourke of Brittas; amongst the nominees of the former Act still unprovided for were the Earl of Westmeath, Lords Ikerrin, Dunboyne, Trimlestown, Upper Ossory and Birmingham. Some of these, perhaps most, ultimately recovered some at least of their lands. But the clause requiring previous reprisals was a fatal bar to others. Finally an Act of William and Mary in 1698 barred all further claims under this clause.
There is something curiously modern about all these proceedings. On the one side we have the credulous optimism of the Irish, their idea that logic and right should override might, their belief in the justice of their cause leading them to ask for the unattainable, their inability to realise the dislike with which they were regarded by all parties in England, their failure to perceive that in the minds of Englishmen the interests of England outweighed all other considerations, their want of union, the selfishness of their great men, in other words a complete absence of political insight and ability.
On the other side there is the grim determination to make no concession without a struggle, the threat in the last resort of the sword, the appeal to race hatred and religious prejudice, the amazing ​dishonesty of individuals seeking for place and profit.
Sir William Petty perhaps gives the best summing up of the whole:—"But upon the playing of this game or match upon so great odds, the English won and have (among and besides other pretences) a gamester's right at least to their estates."
Let us sum up the final effects of these two Acts. In 1641 there were, at the lowest estimate, eight thousand Roman Catholic landowners in Ireland. Of these all except twenty-six were deprived of their property by Cromwell. A certain number of the dispossessed received compensation west of the Shannon amounting to two-thirds or to one-third of their former holdings. We have seen that there is an official list extant from which it would appear that about two thousand persons were thus compensated.
Now if we come to the state of affairs after the execution of the Acts of Settlement and Explanation we find that between 500 and 540 Catholics were restored as innocents; and that, when the status of the transplantees to Connaught was finally regularised in 1677, 580 persons received letters patent. If we add to these the nominees in the two Acts; and such of the letterees and ensignmen as ultimately recovered some portion or all of their lands we cannot allow a grand total of Catholic landowners for all Ireland under Charles ​II. of more than thirteen hundred at the outside. This would lead to the apparently absurd result that there were fewer Irish Catholic landowners after the execution of the two Acts than there had been under Cromwell. The explanation would seem to be that among the two thousand who are said to have received assignments from Cromwell w^est of the Shannon there were first a certain number who did not receive assignments in feesimple, second some whose allotments were so small as not to have been worth notice in 1677, third some who never actually got possession of the lands assigned to them, and finally that a very large number of the poorer transplantees sold their lands at once to Protestant purchasers. These Protestant purchasers were evidently uneasy about their rights, as special promises were asked for from the King by some of them, and clauses to protect them were introduced into the Acts. It is to be noted that the Books of Survey and Distribution show that in 1666 a large amount of land in Clare was held by the new interest, a fact that can only be explained by purchase or by fraud. It is also possible that in the case of the landowners west of the Shannon who had got from the Cromwellian authorities assignments on what had been their own property in 1641 no new ​letters patent were thought necessary in 1677. This would bring the number of transplantees who finally held lands west of the Shannon above the figure of 580.
The whole matter however still requires a further investigation, and perhaps certainty cannot now be obtained.
There is equal uncertainty and an immense discrepancy between the estimates of various writers as to the area actually affected. The most often quoted synopsis of the whole question is that given by Petty. According to him the Catholics in 1641 owned something over two-thirds of the profitable lands of Ireland. He estimates these at three-fourths of the whole, i.e., at fifteen million English acres: the Catholics therefore held over ten millions of good land, and a proportionate share of the "unprofitable" lands.
Of the total forfeited area 700,000 Irish acres were set out to transplanted persons under Cromwell and 40,000 left to the twenty-six who had manifested constant good affection to the Parliament. Then at the Restoration the innocents got back nearly 1,200,000 acres, letterees and nominees 60,000; while "to Papists per proviso with Colonel Vernon"—whatever this may mean—360,000 were set out. So he finds, deducting ​80,000 acres of Protestant purchases in Connaught, that in 1672, when he wrote, the Catholics held 2,280,000 plantation acres of profitable lands, i.e., something less than half of what they had held in 1641; or in round numbers four and a half out of the fifteen millions of profitable English acres; a total loss to them of something more than five and a half millions.
As Petty had a taste for statistics and had every opportunity for ascertaining the facts, one would at first sight be inclined to accept his conclusions as accurate. But Hardinge, who has founded his calculations on an actual examination of the figures contained in the different existing surveys, arrives at a totally different result as to the area confiscated. He has published a statement for each barony and for each county showing the total extent of land forfeited in each. According to his figures eleven million English acres were confiscated, of which 7,700,000 were profitable. In this total were included church lands and the estates of Ormond, Inchiquin and other loyalist Protestants. The remaining nine millions belonged to Protestants who had either sided with or made their peace with the usurpers. So that we may take it that ​in 1641 the Catholics held something more than one-half of the land of Ireland, instead of over two-thirds as Petty supposes.
If we next examine Petty's figures as regards the results of the Restoration settlement we find that at first sight his figure for the extent of land set out to the transplanted, 700,000 Irish acres agrees closely enough with the total in Eliot's list, viz., 717,000 Irish or 1,162,000 English acres. But if we can trust a statement of the Irish agents there were still in or about 1664, 156,000 acres due to persons who had obtained decrees for lands in Connaught under Cromwell, but who had got none. Probably many, if not most, of these persons never got any satisfaction, so that Petty's figure must be substantially reduced here.
Then it is quite impossible to believe that something over 500 innocents got back 1,200,000 Irish acres, nearly one-sixth of all the profitable land in the island, and working out at over 4000 English acres a head.
Both parties seem to have agreed that 400,000 acres would be required to satisfy the nominees; but this may have been before the actual list was decided on; in any case it is certain that many of the nominees never got full satisfaction. It is remarkable that the area held to be forfeited by the adherents of James II. amounted only to something over 1,100,000 Irish acres inclusive of the estates of those comprised within the articles of Galway and Limerick. There can be no reasonable doubt that, as all the Catholics of Ireland had sided with James against William, so ​the estates of all were forfeited except in those cases where the owners made special terms for themselves by a timely submission, or were minors or persons otherwise incapable of incurring the penalties for treason, or were acquitted by partial juries. So that it would appear that at the accession of James II. only at the outside one-seventh or one-eighth of the total area of the island remained in the possession of Catholics. If this is so it shows that Petty's figures do not deserve the credit which is generally given to them.
But the broad results of the Restoration settlement can be more easily arrived at. It involved the ruin of the great mass of the old proprietors. Those who recovered their estates were in general the great men, magnates such as the Marquis of Antrim, the Earls of Clancarthy and Clanrickard, the lords of the Pale, or else the citizens of the five loyal towns. The lesser men were deprived of everything.
In the barony of Carbery there were about 400 landowners in 1641; the Books of Survey and Distribution show that scarcely ten of them held any land after the Restoration. In Kerry there had been over 540 Catholic landowners; hardly any recovered. In the Wexford Barony of Forth there had been 125 Catholic landlords, all of old English descent: not a single one survived the storm.
​Above all we must date from this period the destruction of the smaller men who had formed a veritable peasant proprietary west of the Shannon, and in some other Irish districts such as the Cork barony of Carbery. With them vanished too almost all the smaller gentry, owners of from two to five hundred acres, who abounded in the Anglo-Norman districts such as Kilkenny, South Wexford and South Tipperary.
Of the great men, too, though some such as Ormond, Clancarthy and Clanrickard actually increased their revenues, numbers were completely ruined. In Cork Mac Carthy Reagh, O'Sullivan Bere, Mac Donough Mac Carthy of Duhallow lost every acre of their immense possessions. A similar fate befell Viscount Magennis of Iveagh in Ulster, Lord Clanmalier in Leinster, and O'Conor Don and O'Conor Sligo in Connaught.
In all Ulster some writers have asserted that only three of the dispossessed Irish landowners were restored, Lord Antrim, Sir Henry O'Neill, and Daniel O'Neill, this last a Protestant. In reality a few more got back. But sometimes restoration was but nominal. Lord Massereene kept his grip on Daniel O'Neill's estate until the latter's death. He clung to Sir Henry O'Neill's lands until 1666, and only relinquished them in return for ample compensation in Dublin and Louth. The Connaught innocents could not recover their lands until such transplanted persons ​as had obtained possession of them had been first reprised. According to the Irish agents 47,000 acres were still in 1664—5 withheld from innocents for this cause.
The unheard innocents and those who claimed the articles of peace obtained no redress. Some may have repurchased their former lands; others became tenants of what they had formerly owned, thus starting the class of "middlemen"; the bolder spirits took service with foreign states, or as Tories harassed the new settlers. The weaker starved or sank into the condition of peasants. In some cases the former tenants supported, for a time at least, their old landlords, paying a double rent, or giving them free quarters according to the old Irish custom in their houses.
Sir H. Piers in his account of Westmeath says that the ancient and noble family of the Barons of Rathconrath were then represented by a shoemaker, and a couple of poor cottagers. A German traveller of the early days of the nineteenth century tells how he found in the hands of an illiterate peasant on the Lansdowne estate an official copy of the deed of partition made by the Elizabethan Commissioners in 1594 of the lordship of Bere and Bantry between Sir Owen O'Sullivan, his brother Philip the Tanist, and his nephew the celebrated Donnell of Dunboy. Questions elicited the fact that the peasant was the direct descendant of Philip whose share had been the castle of Ardea and 6 ploughlands.
​Of the nominees many never recovered even their chief seats and 2000 acres as provided by a clause in the Act of Explanation. The benefit of this clause was finally taken away from them by an Act 7th of the 10th of William and Mary, which declared that no letteree, nominee, etc. could recover after Oct. 29th, 1698.
Of the Ensignmen the lucky few whose lands had never been set out to an adventurer or soldier recovered; many perished of want in London or fell victims of the plague. Others received small pensions from the Crown, or took service at Tangier. Fortunate were those who recovered so much of Irish land as would afford them a grave.
* ↑ For the general history of the period Carte's Ormond gives on the whole the fullest account. Prendergast's Ireland from the Restoration to the Revolution has many instructive details. Bagwell gives a very inadequate account of the Acts of Settlement and Explanation. Wilson's Ireland under Charles II. is a useful essay.
* ↑ The first peace had been signed in 1646 but was rejected by the majority of the Irish. Late in 1648 peace terms were finally agreed on, and the peace was proclaimed in January, 1649, shortly before the execution of the King.
* ↑ Ireland is not mentioned in the Declaration from Breda. By it all past offences were to be forgotten, and it might be argued that this oblivion would extend to the proceedings of 1641 and the following years.
* ↑ Prendergast. Ireland from the Restoration to the Revolution, p. 15.
* ↑ There is no mention of religion in Clause IX. of the Declaration. But in the "Instructions" embodied in the Act of Settlement it is specified that Protestant officers are meant.
* ↑ Carte.
* ↑ The townsmen of Wexford had fought valiantly against Cromwell; those of Limerick had rejected an offer of very favourable terms from Cromwell himself, and had stood a siege from June to October, 1651. Galway was the last town in his dominions to hold out for Charles and only surrendered After a siege of nine months.
* ↑ In August, 1660, the King ordered the restoration of the inhabitants of Cork. In March, 1661, nothing had been done. In July, 1661, the King's orders had not yet been carried out. By the Act of Settlement these inhabitants had first to obtain decrees of Innocence before restoration. Many of them never recovered their property, though their loyalty was unquestioned.
* ↑ Carte: letter from Charles II. to Ormond re proceedings of the House of Commons with regard to the trials of innocents in 1663.There were difficulties in the way of the Commissioners, as the King's Declaration had not the force of law. But they took care to distribute lands amongst themselves and their friends as reprisals in case they might have to restore any of the Irish.
* ↑ Carte says that no Catholic and but few "fanaticks" were returned. Orrery says "there sat this day (May 8th, 1661) but one Papist Peer." He also says that one Papist and one Anabaptist were chosen for the House of Commons.
* ↑ Later on some at least of the Catholic peers seem to have been readmitted, but at what date is not clear.
* ↑ Quoted by Carte. Vol. II., p. 233.
* ↑ Carte, pp. 241—2.
* ↑ Muskerry, created Earl of Clancarthy not only recovered his own estates, but also obtained most of those of his kinsmen and dependants who had reluctantly followed him when he joined in the rising of 1641. The plea was that these estates were held from him. Amongst others he got the estates of some thirty of the clan of O'Leary.
* ↑ See Cal. St. Paps., 1660—62, p. 173, for the Remonstrances and Addresses of the King's Protestant subjects.
* ↑ Quoted by Wilson, op. cit.Curry gives a fuller quotation, "but be kept with the same rigour and under the same incapacity to do hurt, which they were under. And though eradication was too foul a word to be uttered in the hearing of a Christian prince, yet it was little less or better that they proposed in other words and hoped to obtain. Whereas the King thought that miserable people to be as worthy of his favor as most of the other party." (Civil Wars).
* ↑ Cox: Hibernia Anglicana gives the text of the Instructions, and the order of the Privy Council.
* ↑ This part of the Act has often been wrongly quoted as if it extended only to those innocents who had never taken lands from the Commonwealth.
* ↑ <Amongst them were two. Lord Strabane and Sir G. Hamilton, who, though Catholics, were sons of one of King Jnmes' Ulster settlers.
* ↑ Such as Lords Castlehaven, Carlingford, and Dillon, Colonel John Fitzpatrick of Castletown, Sir Connell Farrell, Henry O'Neill of Killileagh, Daniel O'Neill, Purcell of Loughmore. Altogether there were about fifteen so named. Some of them were in the list of the thirty-eight nominees, others were named among; the Ensignmen: some were to be restored before the Cromwellian in possession was reprised, others after.
* ↑ The chief exception was Owen Roe O'Neill with his followers, who had violently opposed the peace. But before his death he had come to terms with Ormond in Oct. 1649.
* ↑ Transplanted persons were not to be removed to make way for innocents until they had first got a reprise: Clause XXVIII. of Declaration.
* ↑ This is Potty's figure.
* ↑ We find Colonel Talbot, one of the Irish agents, Colonel Vernon representing the Cromwellian interest, and Winston Churchill, one of the seven Commissioners, all active in Bennet' s interest.
* ↑ We learn from Sir Heneage Finch that the inhabitants of Dublin and Drogheda were, under Clause CLXXXII., to be restored even to their property inside the walls. Those of Kinsale and Youghal got a general letter from the King ordering their restoration. {Cal. St. Paps., 1663, p. 188). But the Irish government objected, and suspended the execution of the King's commands in many cases; perhaps with regard to these two towns also. {Ibid, p. 188).
* ↑ The forfeited lands in the baronies of Barrymore and Muskerry were set aside by Clause XVII. of the Instructions in Act to reprise such of the inhabitants of Cork, Youghal and Kinsale as were not restored to their property within the walls. But Clause CCVII. granted to Lord Muskerry all forfeited lands in Muskerry not in possession of Adventurers or soldiers, and as most of the proprietors held from his father the Earl of Clancarthy the forfeitures fell to him not to the Crown. Similarly in Barrymore the Earl of Barrymore, who was a Protestant, owned most of the barony. So the provision for the dispossessed townspeople can have been of little benefit to them.
* ↑ This I have from a descendant of the Cromwellian grantee Surgeon-General G. J. H. Evatt, Junior United Service Club.
* ↑ See the statement quoted later on: it is in Cal. St. Paps., 1669—70, and addenda.
* ↑ Cal. St. Paps., 1669—70, addenda 1664, p. 491.
* ↑ Elrington Ball. Hist. of the. Co. Dublin.
* ↑ Quoted by Prendergast, p. 256.
* ↑ Cal. St. Paps., 1663, p. 237.
* ↑ Prendergast. So Henry O'Neill of Killileagh had lived with his mother in the Irish quarters being only fourteen years of age in 1641. He went to England and served the King before he came of age, and then served under Ormond in Ireland. His estate had been seized by Cromwell, and was in possession of Lord Massereene. Having lived in the Irish quarters debarred him from restoration as an innocent. Cal. St. Paps., 1666—69, p. 263.
* ↑ Coventry, one of the Commissioners, says they were abused for having restored one or two hundred innocents, "an Act of justice, and therefore an unheard of crime in this land." Cal. St. Paps., 1663, p. 11. This has a curiously modern ring.
* ↑ Cal. St. Paps., pp. 32 and 33. The King to the Commissioners and to the Lord Lieutenant.
* ↑ Reports on Public Records, Ireland, Vol. 1821—25, p. 653.
* ↑ It was said that three of the Commissioners—Churchill, Rainsford and Beverley were for the King, three for the English interest and one—Allan Broderick—for himself. (Cal. St. Paps., 1663—65, p. 231). The document cited above was read on November 30th, 1663, at the Privy Council. Other documents of a similar nature were delivered on December 9th, 1663.
* ↑ List in Appendix to 19th Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Rolls, 1887.
* ↑ Winston Churchill stated that owing to Coventry's absence in London the Commissioners were often evenly divided, and so cases dismissed for want of agreement, the parties, though never so innocent, without any visible remedy. Cal. St. Paps., 1663, p. 48.
* ↑ The surviving Rolls of Innocents, ten in number, have 492 names. One is missing. This would give about 540 in all, confirming the above estimate. Mr. Bagwell gives from the Egerton MSS. Innocent Papists 566, Innocent Protestants 141, Nocent 113; 820 in all.
* ↑ Document already cited. If we suppose that 2000 transplanted Irish received lands from Cromwell, probably an excessive estimate, we must remember that many of these came under one or other of the "nocent" classes, but had the benefit of their articles of surrender. Most of the lords and gentry of Leinster were in this category. None of them therefore could have claimed "innocence." Two hundred is a very low estimate of their numbers.
* ↑ Finch says: "There were several times when the Commissioners wanted causes, and could not prevail with men to bring on their claims."
* ↑ See also Cal. St. Paps., 1664, p. 508, for allegations against Cromwellian witnesses of wholesale perjury.
* ↑ See Cal. St. Paps., 1669—70, and addenda, p. 474; and also their own statement above cited.
* ↑ Sir Wm. Domville refers to the new Bill as early as Nov. 1662, that is, if the document is correctly dated in the Cal. St. Papa. "An Explanatory Bill has lately gone from here for lightening some dark places in the Act of Settlement," p. 627.
* ↑ Cal. St. Paps., 1663-65, p. 3. He speaks of "the Act of Explanation lately remitted" having an unlimited time for judging innocents.
* ↑ Carte, Vol. II., p. 298.
* ↑ Carte gives two reasonable schemes, one by Eustace, the other by Lord Montgomery, but says he cannot find that the Irish agents ever favoured them.
* ↑ See, for example, Cal. St. Paps., 1669—70, p. 49i (addenda) for such petitions. Among the petitioners we find descendants of Elizabethan and Jacobean planters such as Dudley Colclough and Sir Thos. Esmond of Wexford.
* ↑ Cal. St. Paps., 1669—70: addenda, p. 456.
* ↑ Many of those named above were to have been restored by the previous Act and by the King's declaration of Nov, 1660, but as yet had got nothing.
* ↑ See the case of Blackwell. Cal. St. Paps., 1660—62. p. 433. He had got lands estimated to be worth £80,000, though he had never adventured or spent anything as far as the Lord Chancellor could find. See also the cases of Dick and Cunningham as set out in the Act of Explanation. They had got over 15,000 acres in Tipperary and Limerick although they had never "adventured" anything. Clause CLXIX. Also see Sir Wm. Domville on the frauds of Whaley and others. (Cal. St. Paps., 1663—65, p. 270).
* ↑ See the introduction and pp. 669 and 687.
* ↑ Winston Churchill is especially strong on the injustice done to the Irish. He speaks of "the wickedness of the Bill" (Cal. St. Paps., 1663—65, p. 248: see also pp. 255—6). So, too, Sir Wm. Domville condemned it.
* ↑ Cal. St. Paps. 1669—70: addenda, p. 678.
* ↑ Clause CXLVIII. has 21 names; Clause CCXXVII. addB another.
* ↑ That is if we can believe Petty.
* ↑ The two Acts provided for the effectual restoration of about 100 individuals by name mostly after reprisals. In addition some few Ensignmen got back, and also a few letterees, i.e., those who obtained royal letters before the passing of the Act of Settlement and found no one in possession of their lands.
* ↑ Of the two thousand 750 got less than 100 acres, and of these 110 got less than 20 (Bonn). Possibly many of these had been only tenants or leaseholders in 1641.
* ↑ Petty estimates the Protestant purchases in Connaught at only 80,000 Irish acres.
* ↑ Petty believed that the area of Ireland was about ten and a half millions of Irish acres or about seventeen million English acres. The true area is a little over twenty million English acres. Hence if we multiply Petty's estimates by two we come approximately to the true measure in English acres.The pamphlet "The State of the Papist and Protestant Proprieties in the Kingdom of Ireland" is based on Petty's figures. It differs from him in stating that Cromwell left 100,000 acres to those that proved Constant Good Affection.
* ↑ Lawrence, Interest of Ireland, thinks that as a result of the Restoration settlement 2,041,000 acres out of a total area for the whole island of 10,868,000 were left in Catholic hands.Orrery sent a detailed statement to Ormond in May, 1664, according to which 1,400,000 plantation acres had been decreed and restored to the Irish since the Restoration, besides what had been decreed and restored to Lords Clanrickard, Carlingford, Dillon and others in Connaught. But of one item in the list, 321,000 acres restored by his Majesty's letters and by order of the House of Lords, he does not know how much had actually been decreed.
* ↑ Cal. St. Paps., 1663—65, pp. 708—9.
* ↑ Cal. St. Paps., 1663—65, p. 708.
* ↑ It is possible that the Report re forfeitures omitted some lands secured to their owners by arrangement with the King. The Abercorn estates, for instance, do not seem to be included. And the Commissioners complain that since no inquiries into forfeitures were held in Connaught until 1695 many persons really guilty were acquitted by juries composed of persons within the articles of Limerick.
* ↑ These figures are from "Forfeiting Proprietors Listed" in Hart's Irish Landed Gentry when Cromwell came to Ireland; the list is signed Christopher Gough and dates from 1657.
* ↑ e.g. Phelimy Magennis (Cal. St. Paps, 1669—70, p. 486), Con Magennis (Cal. St. Paps., 1663, p. 308), Patrick Russell (he had been left undisturbed by Cromwell), ibid. Furthermore the sons of a certain Manus Magennis who had been absent in Sweeden during the troubles held their father's property after the Restoration (Atkinson: An Ulster Parish).
* ↑ Cal. St. Paps., 1663—5, pp. 708—9.
* ↑ The traveller was a certain Mr. Beltz. The story is retold from Weld's Killarney in Journal of Cork Hist. Soc., 1899. The date of the incident was 1803.
* ↑ This Act also laid down that no person who had been decreed "innocent" by the Court of Claims under the Act of Settlement; but who had been left to the law to recover his lands could recover after Oct. 29th, 1698.