ment." And thus above three thousand persons, 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.* By that bill it was enacted, "that no person or persons, who by the qualifica tions 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 innocency; or any benefit of articles whatsoever." This bill (which the Irish called the black act) was brought over to Ireland, signed and sealed, by the duke of Ormond himself.†

5 See Acts of Settlement.” Lel. vol. iii. p. 440.

Walsh's Hist. of the Irish Remon. f. 568.

cil were empowered to explain any difficulties, and amend any defects in it." Id. ib. p. 442.-" Ormond 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."

66

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 persons, 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.

"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 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. Hist. of Ireland, vol. iii. p. 440.

"By this act, Ormond is said to have got the city of Kilkenny, and sit other corporate towns, together with their lands and liberties, valued by himself and his friends of the council but at £60,000 though they are well worth £120,000." Unkind Deserter, p. 165.-By the same act, three hundred thousand pounds were to be raised on his majesty's subjects 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 £630,000, and whether this sum would not have satisfied all the English interest of Ireland, and have settled the protestants

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

and well-meriting natives of that kingdom in peace; whereas now his majesty, and all Christendom is troubled with their clamors 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 £7000 per annum, and during the war he got more by his government of Ireland, and giving up Dublin, than he could if he were in possession 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 possessions 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 say) they find such lands are vested in his majesty, as have been since the 23d of October, 1641, seized, &c. by reason of, or on account of the late rebellion or war; that the petitioners cannot but take notice, that in some actions that have been depending 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 these words, "By reason of, and on account of, the rebellion or war, 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 some cases, have taken the liberty to find verdicts wholly contrary to the scope and intent of the said bill. And that the petitioners do not find that the said clause is so explained in this bill, but that the same doubts may hereafter continue, and that his majesty's protestant subjects may be put upon the necessities of making such proof, as by the preamble of the said former act seems impossible to be made, &c." To this petition his excellency returned so gracious and satisfactory an answer, that the commons not only voted, "nem. con. that upon the confidence and assurance the house had received from his grace's said answer, they would proceed to put the ques tion 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 should 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 sent 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. 988.

I must here observe, that the king was so sensible of his obli gation to perform his part of the articles of that peace, that mentioning it in his declaration for the settlement of Ireland, which was to be the foundation and ground-work of these acts, he used the following remarkable words: "We cannot but hold ourselves obliged to perform what we owe by that peace, to those who have honestly and faithfully performed what they promised to do, though 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 know. ledge) that they had all along faithfully observed the condi tions of it. And these surely had an incontestable right to the benefits of a peace ❝ 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 main. tain it; refusing, in the mean while, all offers of peace, and that to the very last, from the English parliament."+

7 See that Declaration. Acts of Settlement.
8 Memoirs, first edit.

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 Ulster, 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 Clans rickard, the lord Mayo, colonel John Kelly, and colonel Moore-Sale and Settlement of Ireland.

On the other hand, the lords Montrath and Massareen (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 clamors of the earl of Fingall, and others who were not restored according to their orders, were forced to give them pensions out of the exchequer, which just enabled them to subsist."-Cart. Orm, vol. ii.

↑ I.e. While they could keep any considerable number of their people together; for even Borlase "confesses, that while their assembly 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 so offered, and rejected by the assembly, when together, were soon

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 he was beyond seas, that they betook themselves to, and withdrew themselves from the service of France and Spain, in such man. ner as his majesty signified his pleasure they should do. And (adds my author) if they had ended their speech here they would have done wisely." This made an impression on his majesty and many of the lords."10

CHAP. XXIV.

Some reflections on the foregoing acts.

BUT matters were now so strangely altered, that the very claiming the benefit of that peace, was made use of as an ar gument against their having any right to obtain it; "because," says Mr. Carte, "such claim was deemed a plain confession of former offences;-in short, the king now declared for an English interest to be established in Ireland; and considered the settlement of that kingdom, rather as a matter of policy, than justic. He saw, that one interest or other must suffer, and he thought it most fit for the good of the nation, the advan tage of the crown, and the security of the government, that the loss should fall upon the Irish."*

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."-Hist. of the Irish Rebel. f. 385-6.

* The preceding different conduct of these two parties is thus finely · contrasted by that great genius and patriot, Dr. Jonathan Swift, dean of St. Patrick's, Dublin. "Those insurrections (says he) wherewith the (Irish) catholics are charged from the beginning of the 17th century to the

The duke of Ormond's consolatory argument, with respect to these despoiled people, in his speech to parliament on passing the first act of settlement, is somewhat remarkable.3. “Those," says he, "that shall be kept out of their antient estates, the inheritance of their fathers, through the defect of their qualifi cations, and by the all-disposing providence of God, who was not pleased to make them active instruments in this happy change, are delivered from tyrannous confinements, causeless imprisonments, and a continual fear of their lives.* the good land lies afore them; their industry is at liberty, and they are

3 Carte, vol. ii. Append. f. 25.

great English rebellion, were occasioned by many oppressions they lay under. They had no intention to introduce a new religion, but to enjoy the liberty of preserving the old; the very same which their ancestors professed from the time that christianity was first introduced into this island, which was by catholics; but whether mingled with corruptions, as some pretend, doth not belong to the question. They had no design to change the government; they never attempted to fight against, to imprison, or betray, to sell, to bring to a trial, or to̟ murder their king. The schismatics acted by a spirit directly contrary: they united in a solemn league and covenant to alter the whole system of spiritual government, established in all christian nations, and of apostolic institution; concluding the tragedy with the murder of the king in cold blood, and upon mature deliberation; at the same time changing the monarchy into a commonwealth."

"The catholics of Ireland in the great rebellion lost their estates for fighting in defence of their king; the schismatics, who cut off the father's head, forced the son to fly for his life, and overturned the whole antient frame of government, religious and civil, obtained grants of those very estates which the catholics lost in defence of the antient constitution, many of which estates are at this day possessed by the posterity of those schismatics; and thus they gained by their rebellion what the catholics lost by their loyalty.-Swift's Works, Dub. ed. vol. viii. p. 52.

Before the year 1641, "the Irish (says colonel Laurence) were proprietors of ten acres to one that the English had in Ireland; but, after the act of settlement, these English were in possession, by that act, of four millions five hundred sixty thousand and thirty-seven acres. So that (adds my author) if the majority of proprietors may give the denomination to a country which usually it doth, Ireland is become West England."— Interest of Irel. part ii. p. 50-51.

Mr. Walsh, who was better acquainted with the condition of the Irish before the acts of settlement took place, says, " that the Roman catholics of Ireland were the lawful proprietors, and had been lately the possessors of nineteen parts in twenty of the lands of that kingdom."-Reply to e Person of Quality, p. 145.