affect the character of the proceedings of king James, after "their fugacy," as it is quaintly termed by Sir Thomas Philips. Those proceedings displayed such a flagitious spirit of depredation, such a total disregard of private right and the calls of humanity, such a wanton waste of human happiness, and such base hypocrisy, in cloaking it with a regard for the civilization and the eternal happiness of the natives, as cannot be exceeded in the history of human injustice.

For admitting the guilt of the earls to have been fully and completely established, they and their accomplices alone ought to have suffered for it. It was a violation of every principle of honour and justice, to involve the innocent with the guilty, to proscribe indiscriminately the entire population of six out of the thirty-two counties contained in the kingdom. This was the course pursued in the plantation of Ulster, of which such erroneous statements have been made, in all the histories that embrace the reign of James I. with hardly an exception.

By the "fugacy" of the earls, every man in the six counties was regarded as having at once, ipso facto, forfeited his lands, which became vested in the crown, to be granted, at the pleasure of the monarch, to whomsoever, and on whatsoever terms, he judged proper.

There were three divisions made of the spoils : First, to "English and Scotch, who are to plant their proportions with English and Scottish tenants ;"

Secondly, to "servitors in Ireland, who may take English or Irish tenants, at their choice;" Thirdly, to "natives of those counties, who are to be freeholders."192

The largest and fairest portion of the lands was bestowed on the favoured few of the first class; to the next were bestowed those of the second quality; and the despoiled Irish were planted on the inferior quality.

But a malignant feature of this transaction remains behind,—a feature unique in its character. The wretched Irish, deprived of their paternal homes, driven out to the most sterile spots, were barbarously cut off from all chance of ever regaining their possessions; as the undertakers and servitors were bound, under penalty, never to sell to the "mere Irish," nor to Roman Catholics

▲ Orders and Conditions of the Plantation of Ulster. "8. That in the surveys, observations be made what proportions, by name, are fittest to be allotted to the Britains, what to the servitors, and what to the natives; wherein this respect is to be had, that the Britains be put in places of best safety; the natives to be dispersed; and the servitors planted in those places which are of greatest importance to serve the

rest."193

B Articles concerning the undertakers.

"7. The said undertakers, their heirs and assigns, shall not alien or demise their portions, or any part thereof, to the mere Irish, or to such persons as will not take the oath, which the said undertakers are bound to take by the former article: and to that end, a proviso shall be inserted in their letters patents. 193 Idem, 126.

192 Hibernica, 106.

of any nation for the disposal to persons who did not take the oath of supremacy, and "conform themselves in religion according to his majesty's laws," "194 was rigorously prohibited and

punished.

Now, reader, are you not petrified with astonishment, at this view of the grand and magnificent scheme, which has immortalized the memory of the first Stuart that wielded the triple sceptre of the British dominions?

To bring this point home to the feelings of an American reader, I venture to state an analogous case, to which I request particular attention. Suppose that the resistance of America, in 1776, had terminated as fatally as the various insurrections of Ireland have done; or, to come nearer

"10. The said undertakers shall not alien their portions during five years next after the date of their letters patents, but in this manner, viz. one third part in fee farm; another third part for forty years or under; reserving to themselves the other third part, without alienation, during the said five years. But after the said five years, they shall be at liberty to alien to all persons EXCEPT THE MERE IRISH, and such persons as will not take the oath which the said undertakers are to take as aforesaid."195

Article concerning the servitors.

"9. They [the servitors] shall not alien their portions, or any part thereof, to the mere Irish, or to any such person or persons as will not take the like oath, as the said undertakers were to take as aforesaid; and to that end a proviso shall be inserted in their letters patents."196

194 Hibernica, 126. 195 Idem, 127.

196 Idem, 128.

to the true state of the case, to make the analogy more complete, suppose a wild, incoherent letter had, in 1774, been dropped in the court of St. James's, accusing George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and Peyton Randolph, of a conspiracy; suppose that such threats were held out, and such underhand means used, as to induce them to have recourse to "fugacy:” suppose that, in consequence of their flight, George III. imitating the pious example of James I. had seized on the entire province of Virginia; had taken the inhabitants, like so many merino sheep, and planted, in the Dismal Swamp, North Carolina, those whose ancestors, for time immemorial, had had lordly palaces in the great Limestone valley: and suppose further, that those "merino sheep," planted in the Dismal Swamp, were condemned to vegetate there, and that the intruders on their possessions in the valley were bound, under heavy penalties, never to sell to them: suppose, too, that a large portion of the ill-fated inhabitants, who could not be placed advantageously in the Dismal Swamp, were "transported into such other parts,^ as, by

A "The sword-men are to be transported into such other parts of the kingdom, as, by reason of the waste land therein, are fittest to receive them: namely, into Connaught and some parts of Munster; where they are to be dispersed, and not planted together in one place: and such sword-men as have not followers, nor cattle of their own, to be disposed of in his majesty's service."197

197 Hibernica, 109.

reason of the waste land therein, were fittest to receive them, and not planted together in one place." What judgment would he form of such a system of rapine and cruelty? Would he not regard it as an odious violation of the most holy and sacred rights of human nature? Such a judgment ought he to form of the "famous northern plantation, so honourable to the king."198

The reader is shocked with this detail. He wishes it drawn to a close. He supposes he has learned all its odious features, and that it is impossible to add a shade to its deformity. But he is quite mistaken: one of the vilest remains to be stated. The wretched natives, thus plundered, thus defrauded of their patrimonial inheritance, were still further plundered, and defrauded of a large portion of the shabby "equivalent," as it was called. In some cases, they did not receive above a half or a third, and in some no part whatever, of what was intended for them by the upright monarch by whom this spoliation had been perpetrated.

"The commissioners appointed to distribute the lands, scandalously abused their trusts: and, by fraud or violence, deprived the natives of those possessions which the king had reserved for them. Some indeed were allowed to enjoy a small pittance of such reservation. OTHERS WERE TOTALLY EJECT

ED."199

"The interested assiduity of the king's creatures, in scrutinizing the titles to those lands which had not been found or acknowledged to belong to the crown, was, if possible, STILL

MORE DETESTABLE.

11200

198 Leland, II. 504.

199 Idem, 546.

200 Idem, 547.