DECLARATION AND ACT OF SETTLEMENT, 1660-1662
[Sidenote: Position of Irish Recusants.]
In the autumn of 1660 Sir Henry Bennet, who then represented Charles
at Madrid, forwarded a letter from Hugh O'Neill calling himself Earl
of Tyrone. The brave defender of Clonmel and Limerick felt that his
end was near and begged favour for his family 'which a long and sad
experience will have taught them to value as they ought to do.' Roman
Catholic refugees from Ireland, whatever part they might have taken
in the long struggle with the Parliament, felt that only the King
could now help them. At his command they had been ready to change
from the service of Spain to that of France, and to go wherever his
policy required them. They were included in the Breda declaration
which promised oblivion for the past and toleration for the future.
In London they found many sympathisers but also many enemies, and the
latter proved much the stronger party. The adventurers and soldiers
occupied all the best parts of Ireland, and by the proclamation of June
1 they were confirmed in their possessions until the King with the
advice of the English or Irish Parliament should 'further order, or
that they be legally evicted by due course of law.' Charles spoke under
pressure at the dictation of the English Parliament, but he was bound
by the Act of 1642 which pledged two and a half millions of Irish acres
for the cost of the war. He was not the man to risk his own position
from sentiment or from a sense of justice, but as far as he could do
so safely he sympathised with the dispossessed natives. He owed his
restoration to England, and Scotland and the English in Ireland, 'but,'
says Clarendon, 'the miserable Irish alone had no part in contributing
to his Majesty's happiness; nor had God suffered them to be the least
instruments in bringing his good pleasure to pass, or to give any
testimony of their repentance for the wickedness they had wrought, or
for their resolution to be better subjects for the future.'[10]
[Sidenote: Irish demands considered.]
At first the Irish appeared as suppliants acknowledging their faults,
pleading extenuating circumstances, and begging for royal favour. But
as the King's leaning towards them became evident they took higher
ground, demanding their rights in strong language, and 'confidently
excused, if not justified, their first entry into rebellion' as to
the inexcusable barbarity of which Clarendon speaks as strongly as
any of the Cromwellians. Rightly, from their point of view, but not
wisely, they maintained that the English rebellion, stained as it was
by the late King's murder, was much worse than theirs. Charles attended
regularly at the many Council meetings where the representatives of
various interests were patiently heard, and the more boldly the Irish
advanced their claims the more he was forced to listen to the case of
the Cromwellians, who of course raked up the story of the original
rebellion which in Clarendon's words was 'as fresh and odious to the
whole people of England, as it had been the first year.' As spokesman
for his unfortunate countrymen, Sir Nicholas Plunket must have felt
the weakness of his own position, for it was known, and he knew it was
known, that during the last phase of the Irish war he was anxious for
an accommodation with Cromwell and hostile to Ormonde and Clanricarde.
He had plenty of help from men who knew all the facts, but Orrery and
Massereene were no less well informed, and Ormonde himself was on
the spot. Plunket had been a party to the peace of January 1649 and
accepted office under it, but the terms were ill-kept, and even if
Ormonde were disposed to treat them as still fully in force he was
precluded by the King's Dunfermline declaration that it was exceedingly
sinful and unlawful. It was argued that those who had made the peace
professed to represent all Ireland, and that they had been totally
unable to manage the clerical party who reduced its value to waste
paper.[11]
[Sidenote: The Declaration.]
[Sidenote: Adventurers.]
[Sidenote: Soldiers.]
[Sidenote: 49 officers.]
At the end of November a Declaration was at last agreed to which for
the most part left the adventurers and soldiers in possession, while
making ostensible provision for Irish proprietors who had not engaged
in the rebellion or who had earned favour by subsequent services. The
whole settlement was founded on the principle that the property of all
persons implicated in the rebellion from and after October 1641 was
forfeited and actually vested in the Crown. The Declaration begins
with an acknowledgment of what the King's subjects in Ireland had done
to further his restoration. A distinction is drawn between what was
done by the Act of March 1642, to which Charles I. had consented, and
the subsequent ordinances of the usurping Parliament, the result of
both being that the adventurers and soldiers possessed the greater
part of Ireland. The truce of 1643 and the treaties of 1646 and 1649
were forced upon the late King, and his son would have us believe
that he had confirmed the latter to save his father's life, though
in fact he had done so long after his death. Attention is then drawn
to the fidelity of the Irish during Charles' exile who changed from
one service to another to suit his interest 'though attended with
inconveniency enough to themselves; which demeanour of theirs cannot
but be thought very worthy of our protection justice and favour.'
Nevertheless all the lands possessed by the Adventurers on May 7, 1659,
were secured to them, while those whose claims had not been fully
satisfied were to have the deficiency made up out of territory assigned
to them as a body but not yet distributed. Officers and soldiers
were next confirmed in their possessions with savings in the case of
fraud. Church lands were excepted, as also the estates of men not
protected by the Act of Indemnity or who had broken the peace since
the Restoration. In these cases, as in those where valid incumbrances
were proved to exist, reprisal was to be made. Commissioned officers
serving before June 5, 1649, whose arrears had not been paid in money
or land were to be satisfied out of undisposed land in certain counties
or within the mile-line surrounding the transplanters' district beyond
Shannon. The forfeited houses in towns were also assigned to these
officers, 'satisfaction being first made to such protestants, who
on leases, or contracts for leases, have built or repaired houses,
or planted orchards or gardens.' Protestants whose estates had been
divided among adventurers or soldiers were to be forthwith restored, a
reprisal of equal value being given to the latter.[12]
[Sidenote: Innocent Papists.]
[Sidenote: Article men.]
[Sidenote: Ensignmen.]
[Sidenote: Nominees.]
The next class provided for were known as Innocent Papists, that is
Irish proprietors who had been dispossessed 'merely for being papists,'
and who had received more or less of an equivalent in Connaught and
Clare. Applying for such an equivalent was their own act, and might
'without any injustice' disentitle them to any relief, but they were
admitted on equitable grounds. In many cases no doubt there had
been only three courses open to them, exile without means to live,
starvation at home, or land beyond Shannon. They were now to be capable
of restoration to their old estates at any time before May 2, 1661, on
condition of surrendering their transplanters' portions to the King to
reprise others. Any adventurer or soldier disturbed to make room for
the restored Papist was to have a reprise of equal value. In the case
of towns 'planted with English, who have considerably improved at their
own charges and brought trade and manufacture into that our kingdom
and by their settlement there do not a little contribute to the peace
and settlement of that country,' the old Roman Catholic proprietors
were to have reprise of equal values 'near the said corporations.'
The difficulties of doing equal justice to all was acknowledged to
be great, but those of the Irish who had acceded to Ormonde's peace
and had received land as transplanters were held bound by their own
act. Their case was hard, no doubt, but said the King, 'they can no
more reasonably expect that we should further relieve them, than our
friends in England and Ireland can expect that we should pay back
to them all the moneys they were compelled in the evil times to pay
for their compositions, which they would have avoided had it been
in their power.' Those who had chosen the better part and followed
the royal fortunes abroad, Muskerry and many others being named,
were to be restored if they had received nothing as transplanters,
but adventurers and soldiers in possession were to be first reprised
'out of the remaining forfeited lands undisposed of.' This was all to
be done by October 23, 1661. Eighteen peers, including Clanricarde,
Westmeath, Clancarty, Mountgarret and Taaffe were specially named for
restoration 'without being put to any further proof' along with twenty
commoners of whom Richard Bellings was the most remarkable. Orrery
had persuaded the English Council, or perhaps had only given them an
excuse for declaring, that there was enough undisposed forfeited land
to reprise everyone for his losses, and in the meantime the adventurers
and soldiers were left in possession. The first to be restored were
innocent Protestants and 'those persons termed innocent papists, who
never took out any decree or had lands assigned to them in Connaught or
Clare.' Innocent Protestants and Papists who had taken out such decrees
came next, then the Irish Papists who had constantly served under the
King's ensigns abroad.[13]
[Sidenote: Recipients of special favour.]
All who had been in rebellion before September 15, 1643, and had
received grants in Connaught or Clare were excluded from the benefits
of the Declaration, but some persons were specially protected from its
disabilities. Ormonde and his wife with all his tenants and mortgagees
or those of his ancestors 'barons of Arklow, Viscounts of Thurles, or
Earls of Ormond or Ossory,' were fully guarded. Inchiquin, who had
procured a private Act in England for the purpose, was restored to his
estate of which he had been deprived 'for his eminent services and
adhering unto us.' Albemarle was confirmed in all his possessions, as
were Orrery, Mountrath and his kinsmen, and several others including
'the orphans of Colonel Owen O'Connolly,' Sir Theophilus Jones, Arthur
Annesley Viscount Valentia, and Major George Rawdon. If any restorable
persons were ousted to make room for these eminent persons they were to
be reprised, forfeited lands in Carlow being specially designated for
those who were removed from the Ormonde estate.[14]
[Sidenote: A satisfactory settlement was impossible.]
It was intended that when the Declaration had been confirmed by law
in Ireland, and its provisions carried out, it should be followed
by a general act of pardon, indemnity, and oblivion on the English
model, 'notorious murderers only excepted,' but excluding all who had
conspired to seize Dublin Castle in 1641, and all who had any part in
the execution of Charles I. down to the halberdiers on guard. But,
unfortunately, this healing measure was withheld. The King, admitted
the imperfections of his Declaration, pleading 'that the laying of
the foundation is not now before us, when we might design the model
of the structure answerable to our thoughts.' Thousands of Englishmen
had possessed themselves of Irish lands after long and tedious legal
process, they had brought over their families, sometimes selling
all they had to do so, they had made great improvements, and it was
impossible, as it would have been unjust, to confiscate their property,
'reprisal not first being provided for.' The enormous difficulty of the
task must be admitted, but Charles proved himself no true prophet when
he expressed a confident hope that mutual forbearance would bring about
a good understanding between two parties who had nothing in common but
the memory of an internecine war.[15]
[Sidenote: The first Commission for claims.]
The next step was the appointment of a commission to carry out the
Declaration. It consisted of thirty-six persons, including many peers
and all the King's counsel. The attorney and solicitor-general were
afterwards excluded lest the Crown should be made a judge in its own
cause, but in truth there were but few disinterested men among these
Commissioners, for they were all concerned in Irish land, though
often differing in opinion. Massereene, Petty, and Audley Mervyn,
for instance, were naturally inclined to maintain the Cromwellian
arrangements, while Lord Montgomery, Domvile, and Lane were more in
favour of the old Protestant inhabitants. Some of their colleagues
were disposed to do justice to the Roman Catholics, but the latter
had no direct representation. It is unnecessary to enlarge on the
subject, for little or nothing was done by this unwieldy body, and the
instructions for its guidance had to be applied by a smaller and less
prejudiced commission. Of the three Lords Justices Orrery and Mountrath
leaned towards the adventurers and soldiers, while Eustace thought
more of 'the old English interest which lately overspread the land
far different from such as did rise up with Cromwell,' mushrooms who
considered themselves the true representatives of England and ignored
those who came in with the Conqueror and never made any defection
before 1641. Were they, he asked, all to be cast out for one fault? In
several months the Commissioners had only succeeded in relieving one
widow, though the streets were 'full of those miserable creatures of
all sorts noble as well as of inferior degree.' He thought they were
criminal who had deluded the King into believing that there was a great
scope of available land. Orrery and Mountrath felt the responsibility
though averse to restoring the Irish, and to avoid the odium of
inaction did of their own motion restore a few notable Roman Catholics,
but the great mass were reserved for the new commission.[16]
[Sidenote: Composition of the Irish Parliament, May 1661.]
[Sidenote: Speaker Mervyn.]
The composition of the first commission was not the sole cause of
delay, for the judges held that it would not be safe to act on the
Declaration until it had legal sanction. It was remembered how
Strafford had contributed to his own destruction by boasting that
he would make Acts of State equal to Acts of Parliament. The Irish
Convention having done its duty by making some provision for the pay of
the army, it was resolved to call a Parliament. As freeholds were for
the most part in Protestant hands there could be no question about the
majority. 'The papists and anabaptists,' said Orrery, 'stood in several
places to be chosen, yet but one of each sort was actually chosen, and
they both in the borough of Tuam, an archbishop's see; from which all
collect that both these opinions will oppose the true church.' The one
Papist was Geoffrey Brown, much trusted by the late Confederacy but
opposed to the nuncio. He was excluded by the oath of supremacy, and
his seat seems to have been treated as vacant and filled up. Parliament
met at Chichester House on May 8 after hearing Taylor preach on the
texts that obedience is better than sacrifice and rebellion as the sin
of witchcraft. Bramhall presided in the Lords, the Chancellor being
disabled as one of the Lords Justices. Lord Santry was anxious for the
post, but was considered a cold friend to the Declaration and rejected
to his great disgust. For the Speakership of the Commons the King
recommended Domvile the attorney-general, but the adventurers were too
strong and the Lords Justices acquiesced in the choice of Sir Audley
Mervyn, whose flowery speech before them contained much Latin and
some Greek. Never, he said, since Ireland was happy under an English
Government was so choice a collection of Protestant fruit that grew
within the walls of the House of Commons. Their lordships had piped
and the Irish danced, and 'Japheth might perhaps be persuaded to dwell
in the tents of Shem.' This oration was ordered by the Commons to be
printed, and it filled six crowded folio pages. Thanks were also voted
to Bishop Taylor for his sermon. _A jove principium_ exclaimed Mr.
Speaker on taking the chair. The oaths of supremacy and allegiance were
affirmed by both Houses, the civil authorities directed to co-operate
with the bishops in re-establishing the Church, while the Solemn League
and Covenant and the Engagement were ordered to be burned by the common
hangman in Dublin and in all market towns.[17]
[Sidenote: Debates on the Declaration.]
After a little sparring between the two Houses, the Declaration
was adopted by Parliament in a fortnight, but the Instructions for
working it which had also been transmitted from England were still
open to discussion. Commissioners were chosen by ballot, four peers,
representing each rank, and eight members of the House of Commons.
[Sidenote: In the Lords.]
[Sidenote: In the Commons.]
In the Upper House the lot fell first upon Wentworth Earl of Kildare,
the head of the Geraldines, who strangely enough held Ormonde's proxy.
His mother was a Boyle and his father had adhered steadily to the
Parliament, but he was looked upon as in some sort the protector of the
old English. For colleagues he had Lord Montgomery, Lord Kingston, and
John Parker, Bishop of Elphin, afterwards Archbishop of Tuam, who had
exerted himself in favour of the suffering Irish. Speaker Mervyn headed
the Commoners' contingent, and this shows how strong the Adventurers
were. Among the others were Petty, Sir John Skeffington, Massereene's
son-in-law and heir, Sir Theophilus Jones, who held the Sarsfield
property at Lucan, and Sir William Temple, afterwards so famous. All
were of course interested in land. Temple, whose diplomatic cleverness
was already recognised, acted for the Commons in their communications
with the Upper House. His younger brother John, the Solicitor-General,
was made acting Speaker during Mervyn's absence. Being unable to agree
as to what ought to be the contents of the coming Bill of Settlement,
each House instructed its own emissaries separately. The Lords Justices
also appointed agents to represent them in London and to carry over the
Bill of Settlement: Michael Boyle, Bishop of Cork, afterwards Primate
and Chancellor, Lord Kingston, and Colonel Thomas Pigott, Master of the
Court of Wards. Pigott, in Eustace's opinion, was 'as right unto the
poor people of this nation as any man living,' but he could not say as
much for the first two. Francis Lord Aungier, whose financial skill
was valuable, had six months leave from the House of Lords. Massereene
also had leave to go to the country, which he utilised to slip over to
England and join his forces to the representatives of the Commons, but
a letter was written on Kildare's motion warning the English Government
against hearing one who was not authorised to speak for the Peers.
Of Roman Catholic suitors there was no lack in London, Sir Nicholas
Plunket always figuring as their chief spokesman.[18]
[Sidenote: Conditions of the Settlement.]
It was from the first evident that there would not be land enough
to satisfy all claims, and the Declaration made careful rules about
priority. Innocents were to be first restored, but the Instructions
raised so many barriers that their case might well seem hopeless. Not
only were 'adventurers and soldiers and other persons' in possession to
be fully reprised before anyone could be restored, but Innocent Papists
were disqualified who came within any of the following categories:-
1. Those who were of the rebels' party before the cessation of
September 15, 1643.
2. Those who enjoyed their estates real or personal within the rebels'
quarters, an exception being made in favour of the inhabitants of Cork
and Youghal who were 'expelled and driven into the quarters of the
rebels.'
3. Those who had entered the Roman Catholic confederacy before the
peace of 1646.
4. Those who joined the nuncio against the King.
5. Those who having been excommunicated for adhering to the King owned
it an offence and were relieved from the ban.
6. Those who derived title from any person guilty of the above crimes.
7. Those who pleaded the articles of peace for their estates.
8. Those who being within the royal quarters during the war
communicated with the King's enemies.
9. Those who before the peace of 1646 or 1648 sat in any assembly of
the Confederate Roman Catholics, or acted under orders from them.
10. Those who empowered agents to treat with foreign papal powers or
brought foreign forces into Ireland.
11. Those who had been woodkernes or tories before Clanricarde left the
Government.[19]
[Sidenote: Paucity of evidence.]
With such a list of disqualifications it would seem hard for any Irish
Roman Catholic to prove his innocence within the meaning of the Act.
It was at first intended to exclude all who had paid contributions
to the rebels, whether voluntary or not, but this was dropped as
too manifestly unjust. A strong effort was made to do away with the
disqualification from enjoying estates in the enemy's quarters, but
against this it was argued that in many cases there was no other
applicable test. After twenty years there was little or no direct
evidence, and if the presumption from residence was disregarded
the great mass of the Irish would be restored, controlling future
Parliaments and getting all the seaports into their hands. 'Until the
cessation,' Mountrath wrote, 'none but the rebels' friends could live
in their quarters, all others were expelled or destroyed'; and this
reasoning prevailed. Yet it cannot be doubted that many remained in
the Irish quarters only because they had nothing to live upon anywhere
else.[20]
[Sidenote: Available area insufficient.]
[Sidenote: The Doubling Ordinance.]
Even those who could prove their innocence had to make reprisal to
Adventurers and soldiers in possession before they could be restored.
It soon became evident that Orrery had greatly exaggerated the amount
of land available, but Lord Aungier drew attention to the fact that
many Adventurers had received more than the value of the money advanced
by them. This was largely the result of the Doubling Ordinance passed
when the Parliament were in financial straits after Edgehill. As it
never received the consent of Charles I., Charles II. could legally
ignore it. By this it was provided that those who added one-fourth to
their original stake should have the whole doubled and be recouped in
Irish measure instead of the English acres originally intended. Thus
one whose first subscription was 1000_l._ and who afterwards added
250_l._ would be credited with 2500_l._ As to the Irish acres the
point had been conceded in the King's Declaration. Nor was this all.
If the original Adventurer refused to increase his stake a stranger
might come in and do it for him, receiving double of the whole after
deducting the original advance, and thus a speculator who never gave
more than 250_l._ would receive credit for 1500_l._ Massereene and
other interested persons endeavoured to maintain this arrangement, but
the abuse was too glaring and the Bill of Settlement provided that the
reprisal should extend only to the amount actually contributed. Even
so the fund was still far from sufficient. 'If,' said Ormonde, 'the
Adventurers and soldiers must be satisfied to the extent of what they
suppose intended unto them by the Declaration; and if all that accepted
and constantly adhered to the peace in 1648 must be restored, as the
same Declaration seems also to intend, and was partly declared to be
intended at the last debate, there must be new discoveries made of a
new Ireland, for the old will not serve to satisfy these engagements.
It remains then to determine which party must suffer in the default
of means to satisfy all; or whether both must be proportionately
losers.'[21]
[Sidenote: Incompatible claims.]
[Sidenote: Sir Nicholas Plunket.]
Ormonde would have liked to restore many of the Irish, but they
disregarded his advice. Instead of acknowledging, while endeavouring
to minimise, their share in the rebellion they insisted that the
Parliamentarians alone were rebels and sufficiently rewarded by being
suffered to live. They themselves were the loyalists and worthy of
reward. But their enemies were in possession, all-powerful in the Irish
army and Parliament, and in a position to show that the Confederates
had depended on foreign and papal support, and had done many things
in derogation of the royal authority. During the winter of 1661-2
the wrangle continued, and at last Charles, probably much against
his will, was constrained to cut the knot. The Solicitor-General
Heneage Finch, afterwards Lord Chancellor and Earl of Nottingham,
acted as legal adviser in all the Irish business, and he brought up
a report from the Committee of Council specially charged with it.
The Commissioners from the Irish Parliament and Council had produced
the instructions of January 18, 1647, from the supreme council to
Bishop French and Nicholas Plunket as envoys to the papal court, a
draft of similar instructions for France and Spain, and a copy of
the Jamestown excommunication. Sir Nicholas Plunket was then called
in and acknowledged his signature to the first and his handwriting
throughout the second document. This report was presented when the King
was present in Council supported by twenty members including the Duke
of York, Clarendon, and Ormonde, and it was thereupon ordered 'that
in regard the said Romish Catholics have been already several times
heard at this Board as to the Bill of Settlement, no more petitions or
further addresses be required or admitted from them for obstructing
the same,' and the Solicitor-General was directed to go on with the
engrossing of it. Sir Nicholas Plunket was at the same time ordered to
'forbear coming into or appearing in His Majesty's presence or court,
notice of this order being given to the committees employed from the
said Council and Parliament, to be by them transmitted into Ireland.'
Plunket was often heard again later on, but not till the Act of
Settlement had passed.[22]
[Sidenote: Albemarle resigns in Ormonde's favour.]
Mountrath died of smallpox on December 18, and a fresh patent was
at once made out to the survivors, Eustace and Orrery. But it was
already announced that this was only provisional, that Ormonde was to
be Lord Lieutenant, and that no important step was to be taken until
his arrival. Albemarle, who had a large Irish property, had for a
long time opposed his appointment, and surprised everyone by suddenly
recommending him as a most fitting person. It was, he said, useless for
him to retain the office in his own hands since he could not well be
spared from the King's side. Charles did not consult Clarendon, whose
opposition to his friend's promotion is amusingly described by himself.
The Chancellor objected that the King could not spare the Duke and that
the latter would be able to do no good in Ireland. He might have been
useful if despatched immediately after the Restoration, but now he
had hampered himself by engagements with individuals, and 'had given
himself so much to his ease and pleasure that he would never be able
to take the pains which that most laborious province would require.'
Ormonde answered good-humouredly that no one knew the difficulties
better than he did and that he had not sought the viceroyalty but could
not refuse it on public grounds, and that he would take indefatigable
pains for a year or two to purchase ease for the rest of his life. His
powers of work were enormous, but he knew how to unbend better than
his friend. When the news reached Dublin the Irish House of Lords at
once sent a letter of thanks to the King for choosing one 'of whose
noble and sweet disposition and prudent and just government void of
all sinister and self ends we have formerly had full experience.' His
presence would offer the best chance of peace and settlement, and
no kingdom ever needed them more. The House of Commons were no less
complimentary, regarding Ormonde's government as the most likely to
maintain order and to establish an English and Protestant interest.[23]
[Sidenote: Provisos in the Bill of Settlement.]
[Sidenote: Grant to the Duke of York.]
The Houses were not allowed to do much until the Bill of Settlement
had assumed its final shape. By Poynings' law it could not be altered
after its transmission by the English Council. A week before Plunket's
dismissal by the Privy Council the Irish House of Commons petitioned
the King that no provisos should be inserted in the Bill which affected
the interests secured by the Declaration. Many had, however, been
already decided on and some were added later, which were not all such
as the dominant party in Ireland could approve. Further favour was
indeed extended without demur to Ormonde, Sir John Temple, Sir George
Rawdon, Sir William Petty, and other well-known Protestants, and there
was no opposition to what was done for the Established Church, but such
eminent Roman Catholics as Sir Robert Talbot, Sir Valentine Blake, and
Geoffrey Brown, while deserving well of the Crown, cannot have had
the goodwill of the Adventurers. Antrim, who had been omitted from
the Declaration, was by a special clause placed upon the same footing
as those named in that document. The estates of all the regicides,
except a small portion already given away, were granted to the Duke
of York without any protection for the old proprietors. James proved
his claim to 77,000 acres, and in 1668 his agents were in possession
of at least as much more to which the title was disputed. Lest there
should be any doubt as to what lands were 'forfeited,' it was declared
and enacted 'that the said word shall be deemed and taken not only of
such lands, tenements, and hereditaments as are already forfeited by
judgment, confession, verdict, or outlawry, but such as by reason of
any act or acts of the said rebellion already committed by the several
and respectable proprietors hereof shall or maybe forfeitable.' And
'undisposed land' was defined to be all that was not disposed of by the
Act.[24]
[Sidenote: The Bill in the First Parliament.]
The final touches were given to the Bill of Settlement early in April,
and on May 6 it was read a first time in the Irish House of Commons,
who had the power to reject but not to amend it. Speaker Mervyn had
just returned to his post, and his influence was quickly visible. In
the course of prolonged debates discrepancies were noticed between the
original Declaration and the latter part of the Bill with which it was
incorporated. There was some inclination to refuse the passage of the
Bill until an explanatory measure was also passed, but Orrery pointed
out that there could be no explanation until there was an Act in being
to explain. The Commons proceeded, however, with the preparation of an
explanatory bill, and the Lord Lieutenant was reminded that he would be
expected to transmit it soon after his arrival in Ireland.[25]
[Sidenote: Ormonde arrives a Lord Lieutenant.]
Ormonde, in his capacity of Lord Steward, was detained in London by the
King's marriage, but reached Coventry on his way to Holyhead by the
beginning of July. He was accompanied by many Irish peers, members of
Parliament and claimants to land who were now hastening to defend their
own interests in Ireland. In each county that he passed on the road to
Chester the Lord Lieutenant came to meet him, and the local militia
were paraded. He travelled by land to Holyhead, crossed in very rough
weather and landed at Howth on July 27, the anniversary of the day on
which he had surrendered Dublin to the parliamentary commissioners
fifteen years before. He was at the Castle next day, and on the third
received the House of Commons and had to endure a speech from Sir
Audley Mervyn which was voted to express their sense and ordered to be
printed. There were many other speeches and addresses, and on the 31st
the Lord Lieutenant appeared in the House of Lords and gave the Royal
assent to the Bill of Settlement.[26]
[Sidenote: Bennet Secretary of State.]
In October 1662, a few months after Ormonde's arrival in Ireland, the
faithful old secretary Nicholas was dismissed and Sir Henry Bennet
appointed in his stead. He was soon made Lord Arlington, and by that
name is but too well known in history. The correspondence with the Lord
Lieutenant passed through his hands, and he set himself from the first
to make money out of Ireland. Most of the officials, in co-operation
with Colonel Talbot, did their best to advance the interests of a
courtier who was likely to be very powerful. He was, says Burnet,
'proud and insolent, a man of great vanity and lived at a vast expense
without taking any care of paying the debts which he contracted to
support that.' Clarendon says much more to the same effect and adds
that he was never guilty of friendship to any man. He married Lady
Ossory's sister, and was thus pretty closely connected with the Lord
Lieutenant, but the relations between them were never very cordial. The
nature of Bennet's interest in Ireland was soon made clear in the case
of an ancient proprietor who had no court interest.[27]
[Sidenote: The Clanmalier Estate.]
[Sidenote: Foundation of Portarlington.]
James I. had granted to the head of the O'Dempseys a great estate
on both sides of the Barrow in King's and Queen's Counties, worth
4000_l._ a year in its unimproved condition and subject only to a
small quit-rent. Sir John Davies had reported that the clan were
inclined to live in a civilised manner, and the chief was created
Viscount Clanmalier by Charles I. His son Lewis succeeded before
the outbreak in 1641, commanded a regiment during the war, and was
included in the Cromwellian Act of Attainder. He afterwards claimed
to have adhered constantly to the peaces of 1646 and 1648 and to have
preserved the land and goods of many distressed English, but received
no consideration for his estate which had been given to soldiers and
Adventurers. Not having served the King abroad he was not protected
by any clause in the Act of Settlement, and Sir Henry Bennet coveted
the property. Probably Clanmalier would have failed before the Court
of Claims, for he had been a long time in the rebels' quarters, but
his case seems not to have been heard, perhaps through his lawyer's
mistake, and his position was hopeless from the first. In November
1662 the King granted the whole estate to Bennet who had just been
made Secretary of State, and the Irish officials did their best to
make the grant effective. Winston Churchill and Talbot were very
active in the matter, and the latter showed very little anxiety about
getting anything for Lord Clanmalier. Ormonde was more sympathetic, and
discouraged the private Bill by which Bennet's friends proposed to cut
all knots. The Adventurers and soldiers had to be reprised, and they
exerted themselves to find concealed lands, thereby reducing the stock
available for working the Act of Settlement. Clanmalier was only tenant
for life, but in the end the Act of Explanation gave the whole estate
to Bennet without considering the reversion. The men in possession
were to have two-thirds of their interests, which some valued at three
and some at six years' purchase, and the Manor of Portarlington was
erected with great privileges and the right of sending two members to
Parliament. If Lord Clanmalier got anything at all it was in the nature
of a compassionate allowance. It is not surprising to find that Tories
were numerous near the new borough, and that some of them bore the name
of Dempsey.[28]
FOOTNOTES:
[10] Hugh O'Neill to Ormonde, October 27, 1660, enclosed in Bennet's
letter of same date, _Carte Transcripts_, vol. xxxi. Clarendon's
_Life_, Cont., 226. The Breda declaration is in his _Hist. of the
Rebellion_, xvi. 193, and in _Somers Tracts_, vii. 394.
[11] Clarendon's _Life_, Cont., 209, 221.
[12] The Declaration of November 30, 1660, is incorporated with the Act
of Settlement, 1662, 14 & 15 Car. II, cap. 2, which occupies 109 folio
pages of the _Irish Statutes_.
[13] _Irish Statutes_, i. 252-260, sections 16 to 28 of the
Declaration. Clarendon's _Life_, Cont., 233.
[14] Sections 11 to 15 and 20 of the Declaration, _ut sup._
[15] Sections 12-15, 29, 31 and 35 of the Declaration, _ut sup._
[16] The names of the first Commissioners are in the Act of Settlement,
_Irish Statutes_, ii. 264. Eustace to Ormonde, July 29, August 17 and
21, 1661, _Carte Transcripts_, vol. xxxi.; Lord Aungier to same, May
1, _ib._ The King to the Lords Justices, April 12, 1661, State Papers,
_Ireland_. The persons ordered to be restored by the Lords Justices
were Lords Clancarty, Clanricarde, Westmeath, Fingall, Dillon, Taaffe,
and Galmoy, Colonel Richard Butler (Ormonde's brother), and Colonel
Fitzpatrick. The first and the last of these were married to Ormonde's
sisters, but it appears from the Act of Explanation that there had
been a hitch in the cases of Lords Westmeath and Dillon and of Colonel
Butler.
[17] Orrery to Ormonde, May 8 and 15, 1661, in _Orrery's State
Letters_, i. 35, 36. Jeremy Taylor's sermon on May 8, _Works_, vi. 343;
Lord Kingston to Ormonde, May 5 and 8, _Carte Transcripts_, vol. xxxi.;
_Irish Lords Journal_, vol. i., May 8-25, _Commons Journal_, vol.
i., May 8-17, Mervyn's speech being in full; _Declaration_ of Lords
spiritual and temporal, May 17, separately printed for circulation.
[18] Irish _Lords and Commons Journals_, May to July 1661. Eustace to
Ormonde, July 29, 1661, _Carte Transcripts_, vol. xxxi. Montgomery to
Ormonde, June 29, and Kildare to same, _ib._ There is an elaborate but
not very clear account of all this in Carte's _Ormonde_, book vi.
[19] Instructions incorporated in the Act of Settlement, 1662, no. 11,
_Irish Statutes_, i. 269.
[20] Mountrath to Ormonde, June 19, 1661, _Carte Transcripts_, vol.
xxxi.; Heneage Finch's report, February 1, 1670-1, printed in Carte's
_Ormonde_, ii. appx. 91, p. 75. Finch is a first-rate authority for
everything that happened in London.
[21] The Doubling Ordinance of July 14, 1643, in _Scobell_, i. 45,
repudiated by section 126 of the Act of Settlement. Lord Aungier to
Ormonde, April 17, 1661, _Carte Transcripts_, vol. xxxi. Ormonde's
letter in full in Carte's _Ormonde_, vol. ii. In his letter of June 1
to Ormonde Bellings says not one per cent. would regain their property
'and yet they shall seem not to be excluded from all possibility
of enjoying it when that imaginary thing a reprisal is found,'
_Spicilegium Ossoriense_, ii. 189.
[22] Order in Council, March 14, 1661-2, in _Cox_, supplementary
letter, p. 5. Instructions to the Confederate envoys in _Confederation
and War_, vi. 223-227. In the letter already quoted Bellings gives
credit to Ormonde for having saved as many of the old proprietors as
he could. He confines his sympathies to the 'ancient families' and
warns Ormonde that it cannot be for a Butler's interest to see the land
possessed by 'a generation of mechanic bagmen who are strangers to all
principles of religion and loyalty.'
[23] Warrant for Ormonde's appointment, November 4, 1661, State
Papers, _Ireland_; Orrery and Eustace to Nicholas, December 19, _ib._,
Clarendon's _Life_, Cont., 234-238. On this occasion Clarendon gives
one of his rare dates, and it is wrong, 1664 instead of 1662. _Irish
Lords_ and _Commons Journals_, December 6 and 7, 1661.
[24] _Irish Commons Journal_, March 6, 1661-2. Act of Settlement, 14 &
15 Car. II. cap. 2, from clause 86 to the end. For the harshness with
which the Duke of York's claims were enforced and the character of the
men employed in the work see the letters printed in the 32nd _Report_
of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records, appx. i. pp. 170-181,
particularly Colonel Cooke to Ormonde, June 6, 1668.
[25] _Irish Commons Journals_, May-July 1662. Orrery to Ormonde, May
17 and June 20, in his _State Letters_, i. 111, 123. The Bill of
Settlement passed the Lords on May 30, 1662, without a dissentient
voice. Forty-one peers were considered present, but of these
twenty-three were proxies. Those who actually attended were three
Archbishops; three Earls, Kildare, Roscommon, and Donegal; three
Viscounts, Conway, Baltinglas, and Massereene; seven Bishops; two
Barons, Caulfield and Colooney--_Irish Lords Journal._
[26] Carte's _Ormonde_, ii. 257. Clarendon's letter of July 17 in his
_Life_ by Lister, iii. 208.
[27] Carte's _Ormonde_, ii. 272. Burnet, ii. 99. Clarendon _State
Papers_, iii. 81 (supplement). The letter in which Ormonde explained
the State of the Land Question to Bennet when the Court of Claims had
just ceased to give decrees is printed as an appendix.
[28] Lord Roscommon, the poet, made an eloquent speech for Clanmalier
in the Irish House of Lords. The intrigues about this property may
be followed in the Calendar of State Papers, _Ireland_, 1662-5, but
the letters are too numerous to cite separately. That from Lord
Aungier, calendared at April 2, 1662, must, I think, belong to 1663.
Aungier, who possessed some of the land as an Adventurer, says all
the Commissioners favoured Bennet: he was himself protected by law.
Act of Explanation, sections 78 and 79. Dunlop's _Ireland under the
Commonwealth_, i. 154.