Page images
[blocks in formation]

An enlargement of time for hearing all the claimants,

by whom hindered. His' majesty, by a letter of February 21st, 1662, to the Duke of Ormond, had (probably at Sir Richard Rainsford's request,) granted an enlargement of time for the trial of those innocents who could not be heard within the year. But he afterwards revoked that grant, at the request of his grace, and the Irish council. This appears from a letter of Lord Arlington to his grace, of the 7th of March following, wherein he tells him, “ that his majesty was surprised at reading a letter from him and the council, of the preceding month, relating to the period that ought to be put to the commissioners sitting and determining claims, on account of the contradiction, which that letter contained to what himself had judged, upon hearing that point debated in the (English) council ;” but that, “ however, his majesty would resume the consideration of it.” And accordingly, on the 25th of July following, the same Lord Arlington informed his grace and the council, that “ the king had actually revoked his grant of the 21st of February at their request and solicitation.” For after having told them, that upon receipt of their difpatch concerning his majesty's letter of the 21st of February, directed to his grace the lord lieutenant, for receiving, and admitting, in general, all such persons to put in their claims before his majesty's commissioners in Ireland, as his grace should judge fit, notwithstanding the time limited by the act of parliament was elapfed, he adds,4 “ that he had acquainted his majesty with their opinion thereupon, and that his majesty had accordingly commanded him to signify to their lordShips, that it was his majesty's pleasure, that his said


State Lett.

State Lett. Collect. by Brown, p. 356. 3 Id. ib. 4 Id. ib.

letter of the 21st of February should be wholly fufpended and laid aside ; finding that said letter was gained upon grounds seemingly equitable, though now by their lordships found to be * inconsistent with the act of settlement." And thus above three thousand perfons, who had entered claims of innocency, were not heard, and so were left to be utterly ruined.

For the court of claims being now at an end, that which was called the explanatory bill, put an absolute period to all future hopes of these unheard claimants.6 By that bill, it was enacted, " that no person or per. sons, who, by the qualifications in the former act of settlement, had not been adjudged innocent, should at any time after be reputed innocent, so as to claim any lands, or tenements, thereby vested; or be admitted to have any benefit or allowance of adjudication of


[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]
[ocr errors]

a “ The king referred the preparing of this bill to Ormond, and the Irish council.” Lel. Hift. of Irel. vol. iii.

p. 435.

But the lieutenant and council were empowered to explain any

difficulties, and amend any defects in it.” Id. ib. p. 442. mond promised to explain and amend, agreeably to the wishes of the commons.” Id. ib. These commons, as we have seen, “ were, for the most part Cromwellian rebels, independents, anabaptists, and levellers; and, by the appointment of the regicides, actually possessed of the estates of the Irish.”

Lord Arlington, in a letter to the Duke of Ormond, June 27th, 1663, says, “ As for the letters granted by his majesty for restoring innocent papists to their dwellings, &c. in corporations ; 'tis true, they have been gotten from his majesty by much importunity for particular perfons, but upon your grace's representation of the inconveniencies that may, and will arise from them, his majesty resolves to be very tender of granting. the like for the future." State Lett. by Brown, p. 290.

b“ Thus every one remaining of those numerous claimants, whose causes had not been heard, was entirely cut off. They complained of perjury and subornation in the causes that were tried before the court of claims; but their great and striking grievance was, that more than three thousand persons were condemned without the justice granted to the vilest criminals, that of a fair and equal trial.”

Lel. Hift. of Irel. vol. iii. p. 440.

innocency; or any benefit of articles whatsoever." ** This bill (which the Irish called the black act) was brought over to Ireland, figned and fealed, by the Duke of Ormond himself.

The 6 Walth's Hift. of the Irish Remon. f. 568.


¢ « By this act, Ormond is said to have got the city of Kilkenny, and fix other corporate towns, together with their lands and liberties, valued by himself and his friends of the council but at 60,000l. though they are well worth 120,000l.” Unkind Deserter, p. 165. By the same act, three hundred thousand pounds were to be raised on his majesty's fubjects of Ireland, one hundred thousand of which was for his grace. Queries, Unkind Deserter, &c. p. 168. Quere, 17th, " Whether the Duke of Ormond's gifts and grants amount not to 630,000l. and whether this sum would not have satisfied all the English interest of Ireland, and have settled the protestants and well-meriting natives of that kingdom in peace ; whereas now his majesty, and all Christendom is troubled with their clamours against the breach of public faith.” Ib. p. 169. " The Duke of Ormond's estate was much incumbered, and his rents before the rebellion, exceeding not 7000l. per ann. and during the war he got more by his government of Ireland, and giving up Dublin, than he could if he were in poffeffion of his estate." Id. ib.

Although this explanatory act was so contrived, as fully to answer all the predatory purposes of it, yet the commons thinking the tenure of their usurped poffeffions still insecure, petitioned his grace for a further explanation of some parts of it; and particularly of the vesting clause, “ for by that clause (they lay) they find such lands are vested in his majeity, as have been since the 23d of October, 1641, seized, &c. by reafon of, or on account of the late rebellion or war ; that the petitioners cannột but take notice, that in fome actions that have been depends ing in some of his majesty's courts of justice in this kingdom, wherein the former act of settlement hath been given in evidence, a doubt hath been raised from thefe words, By reason of, and on account of, the rebellion or wat, whether it be not necessary for the making out of his majesty's title by the said act, to bring direct proof that the former proprietors of the lands so seized, &c. were in the rebellion or war.' That from thence jurors, in fome cases, have taken the liberty to find terdiéts wholly contrary to the scope and intent of the faid bill. And that the petitioners do not find that the said clause is fo explained in this bill, but that the same doubts may hereafter continue, and that his majesty's proteftant subjects may be put upon the necessities of making fuch proofs as by the prçamble of the faid former aet


The articles above intended, of which the Irish were to receive no benefit, were thofe of the peace of 1648; on the conclusion of which, Ormond himfelf, then lord lieutenant, declared by proclamation, in his majesty's name, " that all perfons rendering due obedience to the faid peace fhould be protected, cherished, countenanced, and supported, according to the true intent and meaning of the faid articles.”

I moit here observe, that the king was so sensible of his obligation to perform his part of the articles of that peace, that mentioning it in his declaration for the fettlement of Ireland, which was to be the foundation and ground-work of these acts, he used the following


feems impossible to be made, &c.” To this petition his excellency returned fo gracious and satisfactory an answer, that the commons not only voted, “ nem. con. that upon the confidence and affurance the house had received from his grace's said anfwer, they would proceed to put the question for passing the said bill." Com. Jour.vol. ii. f. 388. But also ordered, “ that the speaker with the whole house, should wait upon his grace, to know when he would be pleased to receive their most humble, hearty, and thankful acknowledgments for it." With which message his grace was so well pleased, that by his secretary, Sir George Lane, he fent answer to the commons, “ that although it was then late, yet he would order dinner to be put back, and would be ready to receive the house immediately.” Com. Jour. vol. ii. f. 388.

In his majesty's declaration for the settlement of Ireland, about five hundred gentlemen, who had faithfully served him abroad, were named to be restored to their estates in that kingdom ; yet it appears, that in the province of Ulfer, but three of the natives were restored, viz. Lord Antrim, Sir Henry O‘Nial, and one more of an inconsiderable estate. In the province of Connaught but four were restored, viz. the Earl of Clanrickard, the Lord Mayo, Colonel John Kelly and Colanel Moore. Sale and Settlement of Ireland.

On the other hand, “ the Lords Montrath and Maffareen (two most inveterate parliamentarian rebels) had got into their hands most of the lands of the counties of Dublin, Louth and Kildare, and the barony of Barrimore; and the lords justices, to stop the clamours of the Earl of Fingall, and others who were not restored according to their orders, were forced to give them

penfons out of the Exchequer, which just enabled them to {ubfift." Cart. Orm. vol. ii,

of a peace

[ocr errors]

remarkable words: 6 We? cannot but hold ourselves obliged to perform what we owe, by that peace, to those who have honestly and faithfull performed what they promised to do, though both we and they were miserably disappointed as to the effects of those promises." Nor did any of the dispossessed Irish then claim the benefit of it, but such as were conscious, and could produce authentic and undeniable proof (some of them by appealing even to his grace's knowledge) that they had all along faithfully observed the conditions of it. And these, surely, had an incontestable right to the benefits

" which, as Lord Castlehaven witnesseth, they had sealed and confirmed with the blood of more than twenty thousand of their best men, who lost their lives to maintain it; refusing, in the mean while, all offers of peace, and that to the very last, from the English parliament.”

Their agents before the king and council in England, “ demanded (says Clarendon, who was present) the benefit of two treaties of peace, the one in the late king's time, and confirmed by him (1646), the other confirmed by his majesty, (1648) who was present; by both which they said, they stood indemnified from all acts done by them in the rebellion, and insisted upon their innocence since that time, and that they had paid so entire an obedience to his majesty's commands whilst


[ocr errors]

? See that Declaration. Acts of Settlement.

& Memoirs, first edit.

• i. e. While they could keep any considerable number of their people together ; for even Borlase “ confeffes, that while their affembly continued, such terms were tendered to, and refused by, the confederates, as were agreeable to a conquering army to give (such as that of the usurpers then was) to a broken scattered party as the confederates were.” But“ being then (1652) reduced to bogs and woods, as their best holts, the terms fo offered, and rejected by the assembly, when together, were foon after embraced by all of them, when scattered and divided into parties ; on which they submitted, and laid down their arms; having by the conditions, liberty to transport themselves into foreign parts, or to stay in the kingdom.” Hift. of the Irish Rebel. f. 385-6.

« PreviousContinue »