his majesty upon account of the rebellion (excepting such estates as had been decreed to innocents, and belonged to them on the 22d of October, 1641, and excepting such lands as had been restored to the former proprietors, by some clause in the Acts of Settlement and Explanation, and excepting any lands for which some judgment or decree was held by a Protestant in the late court or pretended court of claims, or in any of the four courts before the 22d of August, 1663), should at all times thereafter, in the four courts sitting in Dublin, and in all courts of justice, and in all trials, actions, and suits, both in law and equity, as well between his majesty and any of his subjects, as between party and party without any further proof, should be always construed to have been seized, sequestrated, and, from the 23d of October aforesaid, forfeited to his majesty without any inquisition or office found, &c. And it further declared, that after the commissioners for executing the said acts have adjudged any of the said lands so vested in, or forfeited to his majesty, to any person or persons who, by said acts are entitled thereunto, and letters-patent should be thereon passed, the rights, titles, and interests of all persons whatsoever, who had been adjudged innocent, as well such as were Protestants as papists,* should be thereby concluded and barred for ever, other than such rights and titles as should be reserved in the letters-patent, and such rights as are the proper act of the party, to whom such letters-patent shall be granted, or of those under whom he claims as heir, executor or administrator, and other than such debts, leases or payments, whereunto the same are by the said act made liable. It is also provided that the said lands, &c. in the said letters-patent contained, should be by the said acts confirmed, according to the several estates

* This apparent impartiality was a mere delusion; for no Protestant was required to establish his qualifications of innocency, as appears from the king's declaration and instructions quoted in a preceding page.

thereby granted against the king, and all other persons or bodies political or corporate. And finally that all adventurers and soldiers, their heirs and assigns, should have and enjoy an estate of inheritance in fee-simple, in such lands as should be certified to belong to them, unless some lesser estate should be therein expressly limited; and that in case such lesser estate should be so limited, the party should be reprised out of other lands, so as to make up his other two-third parts, by the said acts intended to him, equal in worth and value to others who should have estates in fee-simple certified and granted to them.

Such were the Acts of Settlement and Explanation, whose importance was not overrated by Sir Audley Mervyn, when he called them the " Magna Charta of Irish Protestants." But what were they to the Catholics? What to the Irish nation? At least two-thirds of the land in the entire country changed masters. The new proprietors felt conscious that their claims were not founded in strict justice, and were tormented with a sense of insecurity; they looked upon the native Irish as their natural enemies, and dreaded every hour some new attempt for the recovery of the forfeited estates. This dread of recumption existed within our own memory; and the probability that opening political power to the Catholics would lead to a claim for the restoration of property, was by no means a weak argument against the concession of Catholic emancipation. That these acts had no foundation in justice is evident. That they were inconsistent with sound policy is almost equally clear: they caused Ireland to retrograde in every thing that gives a nation value: they made her a drain on the wealth of England, when, from her natural resources, she might have become a source of additional wealth and security: they spread through the country a feeling that the English are the inveterate enemies of Ireland, which,

though it never was perfectly just, and has long since lost even the semblance of justice, is not yet totally eradicated. It is difficult to make atonement for national injuries deep and long continued. The evil extends over the entire surface of society: the good will only be felt, or at least appreciated, by a few individuals.

The guilt of the Stuarts in thus abandoning to ruin innocent men to whom they were bound by every tie of honour and gratitude, did not go unpunished. James II. suffered for the crimes of his brother, as well as for his own follies. If the Cromwellian party in Ireland had sunk into the same obscurity as their brethren in England, there would probably have been no resistance to the despotism of the Stuarts: James might have kept his throne, and England lost its constitution. But the wise dispensations of Providence in this instance, as in countless others, produced universal good from partial evil. The reformed religion and the civil liberties of Europe depended then on the preservation of freedom in England; and, but for the strong support that the English patriots possessed in the Cromwellian settlement, they probably would have failed in the contest. Ireland alone paid the price by which European liberties were purchased, though she reaped little advantage from their blessings.

The conduct of the Duke of Ormond in these transactions has been the theme of unmeasured praise, and equally unmeasured censure. Yet is there no point of fact at issue between his advocates and his opponents. If for the sake of establishing a Protestant interest in Ireland, it was lawful, and even praiseworthy, to commit treachery, fraud, and universal robbery, then may we join in all the eulogiums that have been heaped upon him; but if the best end cannot sanctify the worst means, if Mammon and Moloch be unworthy allies to the cause of pure religion, then must we condemn him as one

who sacrificed upright principle to questionable policy, and was guilty of atrocious evil to effect a doubtful good. The most instructive commentary on his conduct is the simple fact, that before the civil war his estates only yielded him about 7000%. per annum; but after the final settlement, his annual income was upwards of 80,000l. more than ten times the former amount. He felt to the last hour of his life a lurking consciousness that the part he had acted would not bear a close examination; and writhed under the attacks made on him in pamphlets by the men he had betrayed and undone. One of these, named "The Unkind Deserter," is distinguished by its superior ability and deep pathos. There are few who could read the simple and touching details of the writer's statements, without pity for the deserted, and indignation against the deserter. Ormond attempted no reply; he suppressed the book, and threw the printer into prison; but he was afraid to give the matter additional publicity, by bringing the question into a court of justice.

There was a time when it would have been neither safe nor prudent to detail the facts recorded in this chapter; but that time is now past for ever. The Roman Catholics are now as much interested in supporting the Cromwellian settlement as the Protestants. The vicissitudes of property, especially within the last thirty years, have brought into their hands an immense share of the lands which their ancestors forfeited; and time has effaced the lineage of the ancient proprietors. There is no longer any prudential motive for concealing the truth; and it ` has been therefore told as amply as our limits would permit, and yet not without some feelings of reluctance; for the writer, being himself descended from Cromwellian settlers, would gladly have given a more favourable account of their proceedings, if he could have done so with truth.

CHAPTER VII.

The Reign of Charles II.

A. D. 1666.-The restoration of Charles II. produced none of the advantages which the English nation had fondly anticipated, and the prospect of which had induced them to hail that event with such rapturous joy. Many of the puritans were driven by persecution to seek an asylum in Holland and the American plantations. The clergy of the established church had not unlearned the intolerance which had so large a share in causing the late civil war; and their violence drove into exile the most valuable, because the most industrious, classes of the community. The strength of the puritans lay in the middle ranks-the comfortable farmers, the merchants, and the opulent tradesmen. On the side of the establishment were ranged the highest and lowest classes, supported by the entire strength of government. The alliance between the church and state, in the reigns of the second Charles and James, rested on neither principle nor affection, for both sovereigns were, in the worst sense of the word, papists. It was a mutual compact for purposes not very honourable to either. The clergy supported despotism and arbitrary power, by preaching the doctrines of passive obedience and non-resistance; and obtained from the state in return the power of oppressing the dissenters by acts of uniformity. The loss of industrious artisans was further aggravated by the dimi nution of foreign trade, consequent on the war with Holland, and the subserviency of the English court to France. To these causes of national distress must be added the effects of the plague, and the dissipation of the national finances by a profligate mon

1