COURT OF CLAIMS AND ACT OF EXPLANATION, 1662-1665
[Sidenote: The Court of Claims.]
While Ormonde was on his way to Ireland the King appointed seven
Commissioners for carrying out the Bill of Settlement as soon as it
should become an Act. Great care was taken in choosing these, and
Clarendon assures us that it would have been impossible to get fitter
men. The first named was Henry Coventry, well known in the history
of the time. Sir Edward Dering of Kent, a very good man of business,
was second. The third was Sir Richard Rainsford, serjeant-at-law and
afterwards a judge in England. Sir Thomas Beverley, one of the King's
remembrancers, was the fourth. Sir Edward Smith, Chief Justice of the
Irish Common Pleas, came next, and was followed by Colonel Edward
Cooke. The last named was Winston Churchill, father of the great Duke
of Marlborough. Coventry was too useful at Court to be left long in
Ireland, and after a few months he was recalled and replaced by the
Surveyor-General Sir Alan Brodrick. Before the Commissioners could sit
to hear claims of innocence, rules of procedure had to be made and a
vast amount of preliminary work done. Petty's Down Survey was used for
the purposes of the settlement, his cousin John acting as Brodrick's
deputy. The Court of Claims was formally opened on September 20, its
powers under the Act of Settlement and an amending Act being limited
to one year from that date. The Lord Lieutenant was empowered by the
Instructions to issue subsidiary commissions, and one to enquire
into the value of estates restorable or reprisable was issued to
independent persons, and another to Anglesey, Sankey and others, in
conjunction with Coventry and his colleagues, to investigate frauds and
irregularities in the distribution of lands beyond Shannon under the
Cromwellian Government.[29]
[Sidenote: Innocents and Nocents.]
[Sidenote: The Commons dissatisfied.]
The result of the first day spent by the Commissioners in hearing
claimants was that two were declared innocent and one nocent. 'If,'
said Ormonde, 'the lottery would hold out so to the end of their
commission it would prove no ill one for the Irish,' and they
accordingly began to indulge in extravagant hopes. The more violent
among them declared that Orrery and the other leaders who had restored
the King should be rooted out as heretics and damned traitors as soon
as the army became 'Catholic loyal.' It was said, probably with truth,
that many forged conveyances were produced and admitted by the Court.
There was angry consternation among the Adventurers and soldiers who
did not believe in the impartiality of the Commissioners. The House of
Commons, meeting after a short recess, lost no time in giving a voice
to the prevailing discontent. Ormonde had forwarded the explanatory
Bill as desired, but it was altered in England, and when it came back
was, as he foretold, promptly thrown out by the Commons on the motion
for a second reading. 'When,' he wrote to Clarendon, 'anybody of credit
among these people finds himself like to be pinched in his interest he
causes a cry to be raised that all is lost to the English and that the
Irish be their masters.' Timid people sold their goods and departed,
while the alarmists stayed and got cheap bargains. Monks and friars
added to the panic by holding chapters as openly as in Spain, while
prudent Roman Catholics would have liked a sharp proclamation against
the regulars as a protection to themselves. The House of Commons were
bent on making the Act of Settlement more stringent, and unanimously
agreed to twenty proposals for the purpose. Founding an argument upon
the last clause of the Act which gave the Lord Lieutenant power to
alter the procedure of the Commissioners before a date which had
already passed, they called upon him to define the English quarters as
existing from time to time until he left Ireland in 1647, no witnesses
outside the line being admitted to prove innocence, since the rest of
the island was assumed to be rebels' quarters. Another proposal was
that no claimant once adjudged nocent should be allowed to make any
other claim. Ormonde was asked to admit a committee of the House to
confer with a committee of the Council, the action of the Commissioners
being suspended in the interim. The House of Commons had of course no
jurisdiction over the Court of Claims, and Clarendon reported that the
King was 'horribly angry' at their presumption in seeking to treat with
the Council.[30]
[Sidenote: Speaker Mervyn represents the malcontents.]
[Sidenote: Titles not regarded as permanently valid.]
Though fully determined not to yield to parliamentary pressure,
Ormonde promised that the proposals of the House should have 'such
speedy answer as the weight and number of these would permit.' The
Lord Lieutenant was treated with respect throughout, but the Speaker's
speech on the occasion was not conciliatory in substance. The Act of
Settlement, he said, was the Irish Magna Charta and not to be infringed
in any way: 'our strength lies in this as Sampson's in his locks; if
those be cut we are as weak as others when the Philistines shall fall
upon us.... I shall never forget that expression of His Majesty at a
full council "my justice I must afford to you all, but my favour must
be placed upon my Protestant subjects."' He descanted with some force
upon the anomalous powers of the Commissioners who both found the facts
and laid down the law. The House of Commons asked for juries, since
they were certain to be composed of Protestant freeholders. Mervyn
clearly understood that Irish claims would still be made whatever
law or lawyers might say, and to defeat them proposed to impound all
nocents' title-deeds. 'Sir,' he said, 'in the North of Ireland, the
Irish have a custom in the winter, when milk is scarce, to kill the
calf and preserve the skin, and stuffing it with straw they set it upon
four wooden feet which they call a _Puckan_, and the cow will be as
fond of this as she was of the living calf; she will low after it and
lick it and give her milk down, so it stands but by her. Sir, these
writings will have the operation of this _Puckan_, for wanting the land
to which they relate they are but stuffed with straw, yet, sir, they
will low after them, lick them over and over in their thoughts, and
teach their children to read by them instead of horn-books. And if any
venom be left they will give it down upon the sight of these _puckan_
writings, and entail a memory of revenge, though the estate tail be
cut off.' This was prophetic: for many generations and perhaps even to
this day obsolete title-deeds were handed about, though useless for any
purpose but to make property insecure and to perpetuate the memory of
wrongs long past.[31]
[Sidenote: The Court of Claims satisfied no one.]
The Commissioners continued to sit during the spring and summer of
1663, but no one was satisfied, and the sheriffs made difficulties
about executing their decrees unless they were backed by the ordinary
courts of law. The time for hearing claims expired in August, when it
was estimated that only one-sixth of the applicants had been heard, but
that 800,000 acres had been restored to them. Many Protestants sought
decrees of innocence, as a precaution no doubt, for Ormonde and Cork
were among them. In March the Lord Lieutenant sent an answer to the
Speaker reproaching the Commons with having caused general insecurity
so that many English Protestants had been frightened into 'selling
their lots and adventures at vile and under rates, or compounding with
the old proprietors on very ill terms.' He announced the discovery of
a plot by so-called Protestants to seize the Castle, and the Commons
could only resolve to live and die with His Grace. Average politicians
might be a little startled at the military conspiracy, but what they
really feared was quite different, and they presented bills for the
suppression of the Popish hierarchy and for imposing the oaths of
supremacy and allegiance upon all officials and others in positions of
trust. Five days later the House adjourned for six weeks, but before
the time had expired the Lord Lieutenant prorogued Parliament by
proclamation and it did not meet again for more than two years. Both
he and the King were almost tempted to dissolve at once, and he was
empowered to do so at his own discretion.[32]
[Sidenote: Discontent among soldiers.]
[Sidenote: Many cavaliers served the Parliament.]
Ireland could not be governed without a standing army, and the cost of
maintaining one, even on the most reduced scale, made it impossible to
balance the public accounts. As there was no money to spare in England,
the force upon which everything depended was irregularly paid and
of course discontented. Ormonde refused to be coerced by hot-headed
cavaliers into discharging all officers and men who had served the
Protector, though he weeded them as closely as possible. Those who
were discharged all remained in the country. A wholesale proscription
would affect nearly all the English in Ireland, 'and many of your own
party,' he told the King, 'were forced by the persecution that followed
them in England to shelter themselves in Ireland, and as they were
able to make friends, to get into the army some as inferior officers,
some as private soldiers.' The revolutionary politicians thought
it safer to get them out of England even on these terms. They were
Royalists all along, and showed it when the time came. Many who never
served against the King and some who had actually fought for him in
England, 'their interest and detestation of the Irish assisting their
mistake,' thought they might conscientiously oppose him when treaties
with the rebels were being made in his name. They also believed, or
wished to believe, that the late King had handed over the whole war
to the Parliament once for all. National feeling and the folly of the
clerical party made them receive Cromwell in certain towns, but they
had since repented. He declined to cashier such men, though he took
care to admit no recruits that had not a clear record. There were
therefore heads to conspire and plenty of hands to execute, but Ormonde
was aware that the plot in the North of England had sympathisers in
Ireland. It was reported that Ludlow had returned to put himself at
the head of the malcontents, and the Ulster Presbyterians might have
been goaded by the bishops into rebellion. Spies were not wanting,
and Colonel Vernon, Henry Cromwell's old antagonist, made himself
very useful. Robert Shapcote, representing the borough of Wicklow,
was arrested as a ringleader, and the House of Commons could not
interfere during prorogation. It does not appear that more than two
or three Presbyterian clergymen were in any way concerned, nor any of
the more responsible sectaries. Ormonde's suspicions fell, perhaps not
unnaturally, upon Henry Cromwell's old chaplain, Stephen Charnock,
but there seems no reason to suppose that he was implicated, and in
any case he eluded all attempts to arrest him either in England or
Ireland.[33]
[Sidenote: The Castle plot.]
[Sidenote: A Puritan visionary.]
The villain of the piece was Thomas Blood, owner or former owner of a
small property at Sarney, near Dunboyne, in Meath, whose mysterious
life has never been fully cleared up but who is known to students of
history and to readers of 'Peveril of the Peak' as the man who stole
the crown in the Tower and tried to kidnap the Duke of Ormonde at the
top of St. James's Street. Plenty of dupes were to be had among the
unpaid soldiery and the settlers who were likely to lose their lands
through the action of the Court of Claims. One of these, Colonel
Alexander Jephson, member of Parliament for Trim, disclosed the
whole plot to Sir Theophilus Jones two days before the time fixed for
its execution. Jones was living at Lucan, of which he disputed the
ownership with the Sarsfield family, and was walking near the bridge
looking at Colonel Jeffreys' troop when Jephson appeared and asked
him about his land case. Jones said the trial was fixed for June 17,
and that he hoped to succeed. Jephson said he would be beaten but
would recover the estate in 7000 years. After this apocalyptic speech
he asked for a private interview, distrusting Jeffreys, who had been
heard to say that the Commissioners were just men. They went into
the House together, Jones promising secrecy provided his visitor's
suggestions were just and honest. Jephson laid his hand on his sword,
which he had not worn for thirteen years, declared that he and his
friends were going to Dublin 'resolved to adventure their lives' for
the preservation of the English. Having a wife and thirteen children
he had taken the precaution to make a will, but had no doubt of being
able to seize Dublin Castle, Cork, Limerick, Waterford, and Clonmel.
The conspirators had plenty of money ready in Dublin, some of which
probably came from Holland, and 20,000 Scots excommunicated by the
Bishop of Down and other prelates were ready to take the field in two
days. The regular army would doubtless follow as soon as they had
circulated their scheme, of which thousands of copies were already in
print. Sir Henry Ingoldsby would appear in Dublin at the head of 1000
horse as soon as the revolutionary flag was hoisted on the Castle. All
soldiers who joined would have their arrears at once paid in full,
and all the English would be restored to their lands as they stood on
May 7, 1659. The solemn league and covenant would be enforced once
more with the help of many sympathising ministers who then went about
in periwigs, and no popery would be tolerated. Jephson was to arrest
Clancarty and Fitzpatrick, and the Lord Lieutenant to be civilly
treated as a prisoner. There was to be no bloodshed and no plunder, but
by peaceful means he had no doubt that they would have everything in
their power long before seven thousand years. Jones himself was to be
_Generalissimo_. Sir Theophilus wrote everything down at once and the
next morning carried the news to Ormonde.[34]
Philip Alden, one of the chief conspirators, gave full information,
and his escape from the Castle was probably connived at. He was an old
adherent of Ludlow and kept up a correspondence with him to prevent
suspicion.
[Sidenote: Failure of the plot.]
[Sidenote: Escape of Blood.]
The 21st of May, after at least one postponement, was fixed for the
attack on the Castle. Blood's plan, which he had been nine months
hatching, was for six men to enter by the main gate at six in the
morning and make their way to the back entrance in Ship Street, where
some confederates were to be in waiting with a basket of bread. The
loaves were to be dropped at the gate and in the confusion Blood was
to rush in with 100 men and make himself master of the Castle. Nearly
300 old officers would be ready to clear the streets. The conspirators
met about nine o'clock the night before at the White Hart in Patrick
Street, where it was intended that there should be a large gathering
before morning, but the landlady took fright and declared that if they
did not disperse she would give the alarm to the Lord Lieutenant. This
seems to have prevented the attempt, but Ormonde was already warned and
prepared for any event. Blood escaped through Ulster and a proclamation
appeared at once announcing the discovery of the plot, followed two
days later by another, in which several conspirators were named and
100_l._ offered for the apprehension of any one of them. Many arrests
were made, and the excited state of feeling may be gathered from what
happened when the first batch of prisoners were arraigned. A soldier
was killed by a musket accidentally discharged outside, and the fear
of a rescue caused such a panic that the judges were near leaving
the bench. Jephson was found guilty along with Colonel Edward Warren,
Captain Thompson, and a Presbyterian clergyman named Lecky. The first
three were executed a few days later, Jephson making a full confession
and laying all blame on the vile Papists. Again there was an alarm and
great confusion, the tradesmen beginning to shut up their shops, but
the Sheriff and his guard restored order so that Warren's speech could
be heard. He talked of the good old cause 'which now lieth in the dust
and some days would have terrified the greatest monarchs.' Thompson
also spoke, saying he was fooled by Blood, praying for the King and
dying a Church of England man.[35]
[Sidenote: Presbyterians only slightly implicated.]
The Rev. William Lecky, who was Blood's brother-in-law, feigned madness
after conviction so that sentence of death could not be passed on him.
He perhaps hoped that Massereene and Speaker Mervyn would be willing
and able to protect him, but if so he was disappointed. After nearly
six months' confinement he escaped out of Newgate prison disguised as
a woman, his fetters having been filed off by two men also in female
attire, but was caught again, sentenced, and hanged. His efforts to
bring other Presbyterian ministers into the plot had little success,
great as the discontent was. Many of them suffered detention, but only
two, Andrew McCormick and John Crookshanks, seem to have been really
implicated. They fled to Scotland and were both killed at Rullion
Green in 1666. The most important person affected in Ulster was Major
Alexander Staples, by whose means the conspirators hoped to possess
Londonderry. Staples was in prison for a year, but having been active
in the King's restoration he received a pardon, and the same indulgence
was extended to Shapcote, by whose example he had been guided. In
Munster there was an attempt to tamper with the soldiers, but Orrery,
with the help of his kinsman the Bishop of Cork, had no difficulty in
dealing with the malcontents. In Connaught it was reported that Ludlow
had actually arrived, and some suspected officers fitted out a ship
nominally to search for the enchanted island of Brasil. They were taken
at the Arran islands and discharged as 'ridiculously enthusiastic'
dupes. Ludlow was at Vevay all the time, though rumours of his coming
were rife long afterwards. He was in constant danger from Royalist
assassins, one of whom, an Irishman named Riordan, ultimately succeeded
in killing John Lisle.[36]
[Sidenote: The Marquis of Antrim's case.]
Nothing caused more alarm among the Adventurers and the English
generally than the judgment of the Commissioners declaring Antrim
innocent. Much of his property was in possession of Massereene and
of other soldiers and Adventurers who knew how to make themselves
heard, and the case may have had something to say to the Castle plot.
Within the meaning of the Act of Settlement Antrim was certainly not
innocent, for he had lived long in the rebels' quarters, worked for
Rinuccini against Ormonde, and afterwards been Cromwell's pensioner. He
had, however, raised men who formed the nucleus of Montrose's force,
though he did not go with them himself as agreed, and though the number
fell far short of what he had promised. He had been ruined by his
extravagance at Court long before 1641, and his creditors, some of whom
were secured by a mortgage, naturally maintained that if the men in
possession were put out their claims should be preferred to those of
the nominal owner. At first there was no inclination to treat Antrim
favourably, and when he came to London soon after the Restoration he
was imprisoned in the Tower by the King's special order at the instance
of the Commissioners of the Irish Convention, who impugned his conduct
during the war, and he was also charged with having libelled the late
King by suggesting his complicity in the Irish rebellion. His creditors
would have arrested him if the Government had not. No evidence was
offered, and at the end of March 1661 bail was accepted for his
appearance before the Irish Council, Lords Moore, Dillon, and Taaffe
being bound for him in the sum of 20,000_l._ He appeared in Dublin
accordingly, was under restraint there for a short time, and was then
bailed by orders from England. All the documents were forwarded and the
case was committed by the Irish Council to Attorney-General Domvile and
Solicitor-General Temple.[37]
[Sidenote: Queen Henrietta Maria favours Antrim.]
Charles had at first refused to see Antrim and showed no disposition to
favour him. By the Act of Settlement he was placed on the same footing
as Lord Netterville, who had to go before the Commissioners and failed
to obtain a decree of innocence. Pressure in his favour was however
applied by Queen Henrietta Maria, acting no doubt under the influence
of Jermyn, now Earl of St. Albans. At first her advocacy had not much
effect, and she was too cautious to write strongly in her own name
though she entreated Ormonde to 'forsake in part his own sense which
will most singularly oblige her.' She was above all anxious that the
case should be entirely settled in England. Antrim had been sent to
Ireland nevertheless, and when it was proposed to pass a special Act
in his favour, Ormonde found his whole Council against it and declared
that there was not the slightest chance of getting such a measure
through the House of Commons. Moreover, Antrim had put in his claim of
innocence. If he succeeded, no further legislation was wanted; if he
failed, an Act to exonerate him would be unjust to other Adventurers
and soldiers. An investigation was made by a Committee of the English
Privy Council, of which both Clarendon and St. Albans were members.
Ormonde and Anglesey, who best knew what could be said against Antrim,
were absent in Ireland, and the report was favourable to him. The
Chancellor, who admitted that he had always disliked him, did not think
that he could be rightly condemned 'except you have somewhat against
him which we do not know; and that it is strange that you have never
sent the information to us; for we know the King was not more inclined
towards him than law and justice required.' As it was, and in the
absence of further information from the Irish Council, His Majesty
wrote to them declaring his belief in Antrim's innocency and desiring
them to transmit his letters to the Commissioners. Several documents,
he said, had been produced which showed that the late King was 'well
pleased with what the marquess had done, after he had done it, and
approved the same.' He added that Antrim's English creditors were very
unwilling to lose their security by leaving his great estate in the
hands of Adventurers and soldiers 'who have advanced very small sums
thereon.' The Lord Lieutenant and Council hesitated to transmit the
letter to the Commissioners on the ground that the King had not all the
facts before him, that Antrim had notoriously sided with the nuncio,
prevented the Confederates from sending the stipulated 10,000 men to
England, and opposed the peaces of 1646 and 1648. Antrim's friends at
Court then procured a second letter from the King addressed to the
Commissioners of Claims directly, but containing the same matter as the
first, and so matters stood when the case came on for hearing.[38]
[Sidenote: A King's letter held superior to an Act of Parliament.]
Rainsford presided in the Court of Claims, and wished to find Antrim
innocent at once upon the King's letter only and without hearing
any evidence. Dering objected to this, and the case proceeded, but
Rainsford frequently interrupted saying that it was waste of time
and that the letter covered all. At last it was proposed first to
refer the case back to the King, then to adjourn it, and then to
give further time for the production of the Council's answer to the
King's letter. All these expedients were rejected by a majority and
Antrim was adjudged innocent by four votes to three. According to the
evidence he was clearly disqualified under the Act of Settlement which
the Commissioners were sworn to administer, and their decree rested
entirely on the King's letter.[39]
[Sidenote: 'Murder will out.']
[Sidenote: Antrim is restored.]
At the moment of this trial Roger Lestrange was appointed surveyor of
the press, and his attention was very soon attracted to a pamphlet
printed in London but sent from Ireland under the title of 'Murder
will out,' in which it is maintained that 'the King's letter takes all
imputations from Antrim and lays them totally upon his own father.'
The writer, whose name has never become known, said he was a young man
and may well have been one of the junior counsel present. There can be
no doubt that Charles I. did often communicate with the Irish through
Antrim, but there is no evidence of his complicity in the rebellion
itself, though he may have been quite ready to use and increase
Strafford's army and to make himself master of Dublin during the months
preceding the actual outbreak. The pamphlet, however, made a great stir
in England and was very useful to the extreme Protestant party. Charles
was much in the habit of signing important papers without knowing
their contents, but he now had this important letter read over to him
in full Council along with the hostile petition of the Adventurers
and soldiers. Ormonde had already complained that the restoration of
over 100,000 acres to Antrim would falsify all calculations as to the
amount of land available, nor could he naturally be much inclined to
favour the man who had thwarted him on every possible occasion during
the Irish war. Ultimately Antrim regained his estate through a proviso
in the Act of Explanation, repudiating the decree of innocence, and
setting forth that the marquis had since pleaded guilty to prevent a
new trial. Certain quit-rents imposed by that measure--and on such
an enormous tract of land they must have amounted to a considerable
sum--were granted by the King to St. Albans, and no doubt that was the
reward for Henrietta Maria's interference. Her favourite is described
by Evelyn as having 'lived a most easy life, in plenty even abroad,
while his Majesty was a sufferer ... a prudent old courtier and much
enriched since his Majesty's return.'[40]
[Sidenote: The Bill of Explanation.]
The first Bill of Explanation promoted by the Irish Parliament having
been promptly rejected by the English Government, Ormonde and his
Council were directed to prepare another. This was drawn by Rainsford
and sent away at the end of September. Amendments to it followed a few
days later, and Rainsford, who apparently had not had exactly his own
way, sent over a separate draft by the same messenger. Consideration
of the Bill was deferred until Sir Thomas Clarges arrived with these
additional papers, but Richard Talbot gave out that the delay was his
doing. Rainsford, Beverley, and Brodrick were sent for at once, and
Churchill was allowed to follow at the end of the year. The Bill came
before the Council in the middle of November, and was explained by
Finch. Sir Nicholas Plunket was at once heard in reply, but admitted
that the Solicitor-General had anticipated most of his objections.
After this, though there was much discussion in Council, the Bill
hung fire for months. Bristol's attack on Clarendon and the stress of
parliamentary work generally delayed the despatch of Irish business and
gave time for countless intrigues. 'There are very few,' Clarendon
told Ormonde, 'who have spent a few months in Ireland and return hither
who do not understand Ireland and the several interests there better
than you.' All parties were heard by April 1664, and as Clarendon had
long foreseen the King then found it necessary to send for the Lord
Lieutenant. He went over accordingly in May, leaving his son Ossory as
Deputy. Orrery reached London about the same time, and for some months
the scene of action was there, while Ossory kept Ireland quiet without
much difficulty. 'He is winningly civil to all,' his grandmother wrote
'and yet keeps that distance that belongs to his place, and manages his
affairs with judgment and care.'[41]
[Sidenote: Object of the Bill.]
[Sidenote: Dissatisfaction of Clarendon.]
The Act of Explanation was not intended to alter anything in the Act of
Settlement, but only to clear up doubts and supply omissions. Ormonde
repeatedly declared that almost any permanent arrangement would be
better than none, Ireland being a prey to uncertainty in the meantime.
There was not land enough to satisfy everybody and it was necessary
that each party should sacrifice something. In Ireland the English
party had agreed to surrender one-sixth of what the Act of Settlement
gave them, but the Irish agents in London thought this too little, and
it was then arranged that 1,800,000 Irish acres of profitable land
should be assigned to the English and the rest to the Irish. The latter
being still dissatisfied, the English party consented to have the
one-sixth raised to one-third, and upon that basis the Bill was settled
by Finch with the help of a committee consisting of the Duke of Ormonde
and of all the Irish Privy Councillors then in London, including
Orrery and Anglesey, with the Commissioners of Claims excepting Smith,
who seems not to have left Ireland. Clarendon wished the Bill to be
strictly explanatory and opposed all provisos in favour of particular
persons, as he had done in the case of the Act of Settlement, and all
material alterations in the draft sent from Ireland. 'To what purpose,'
he said, 'is Poynings' Act that all Acts shall be transmitted from
thence hither if we under pretence of mending an Act shall graft new
matter into it that hath not the least relation to the matter prepared
there.' Both he and Ormonde were opposed to such provisos. But he was
overruled, for Charles's good nature or indolence had induced him
to give many promises, which had to be redeemed. 'The first thing a
King should learn,' said Temple after some experience of the reigning
monarch's ways, 'is to say No, so resolutely as never to be asked
twice, nor once importunately.' That lesson was never learned by
Charles II., and the wrangle about the interests of particular persons
continued for nearly a year after Ormonde's arrival in England.[42]
[Sidenote: Provisions of the Bill agreed to.]
The Act of Explanation contains 234 clauses and occupies 136 folio
pages. Forfeited lands were vested in the Crown as before, but
decisions actually given under the former Act were confirmed. There
was, however, no attempt to provide for further decrees of innocence,
the power to grant which had expired on August 21, 1663. There had been
over 800 decrees, but Plunket and his friends alleged that 8000 cases
had been unheard for want of time, and Finch allowed that there were
about 5000 such claims, including several that had been entered twice.
By the Act of Settlement officers and soldiers were protected as to
lands in their possession on May 7, 1659, but some doubts had arisen
as to whether this did not exclude those who had left the army between
that date and November 30, 1660, and it was now decreed that there was
no such exclusion. It was laid down that Protestants should be first
provided for, 'of whom his Majesty ever had and still hath greatest
care and consideration in the settlement of this his kingdom,' and all
Adventurers, officers, and soldiers were confirmed as to two-thirds
of what they had held at the former date. Protestant purchasers of
land from the transplanted in Connaught and Clare were confirmed, but
Adventurers who claimed under the doubling ordinances of the Long
Parliament had to be contented with the equivalent of what they had
actually advanced. Of the thirty-eight persons specially named as
restorable in the Act of Settlement, seventeen had received nothing,
the stock of land available for reprisals having been exhausted.
To these were now joined sixteen who had been mentioned but less
particularly in the former Act, twenty-one fresh names were added, and
the whole fifty-four were declared entitled to their principal houses
and 2000 acres of land adjoining them. Very many of the provisos to
which Clarendon objected were nevertheless included. The administration
of the new Act and of the 'matters of the former Act which remain in
force' was entrusted to five members of the former commission, Chief
Justice Smith, Sir Edward Dering, Sir Alan Brodrick, Sir Winston
Churchill, and Colonel Edward Cooke. Rainsford, now a judge in England,
and Beverley, a master of requests, were very obnoxious to the English
party in Ireland and were not reappointed, ostensibly by reason of
their official duties. It was not till May 1665 that the Act was ready
for transmission to Ireland, where it might be passed or rejected but
not altered.[43]
[Sidenote: Ormonde brings the Bill to Ireland.]
The Court was at Salisbury in August 1665, and there the Great Seal
was affixed to the Bill of Explanation. Business was at this time much
interrupted by the plague, and some of the discussion had taken place
at Sion House and Hampton Court. Ormonde set out about the middle
of the month, stayed some days at Bristol, where as Lord Lieutenant
of Somersetshire he was occupied in settling local disputes, and on
September 2, having crossed the Severn at Gloucester and the Wye at
Hereford, sailed from Milford Haven in the _Dartmouth_ frigate, and
after only eight hours at sea arrived at Duncannon next morning,
where he found the Duchess and his two sons with their wives. The
distinguished party were ill lodged and fed at the fort, whence they
went to Waterford, and on the third day to Kilkenny, where the Lord
Lieutenant stayed for six weeks. On October 17 he entered Dublin amid
great rejoicings, the citizens marching in procession. The garrison
were reinforced by a troop of mounted volunteers in handsome grey
uniforms with scarlet and silver facings, mythological figures appeared
at various points, and claret ran freely from a fountain in the Corn
Market. Every available coach was in attendance, and when these
vehicles were at last got out of the way fireworks were discharged in
the streets.[44]
[Sidenote: The Bill in the Irish Parliament.]
After the adjournment of the Irish Parliament on May 25, 1663, the
recess was prolonged by almost innumerable prorogations until October
26, 1665, when the Houses were at last allowed to meet. In order to
observe their temper Ormonde withheld the Bill of Explanation for some
days, during which he ordered it to be printed, and the Commons at
once took up the Castle plot which had been exposed after their last
sitting. A committee was appointed who had the documentary evidence
before them, and Robert Shapcote, the member of the House chiefly
implicated, was twice heard in his own defence. The result was that he
and six other members were expelled and declared incapable of sitting
in any Parliament, their further prosecution being left to the ordinary
course of law. The conspirators' declaration written by Blood was
ordered, if the Lord Lieutenant should think fit, to be burnt by the
hangman in the most public part of Dublin. The Bill of Explanation was
read a first time on November 11 and a second time ten days later.
Petitions were then presented from John Fitzgerald, Knight of Kerry, a
Roman Catholic, and Captain John Magill of Down, a Protestant, whose
estates were declared forfeited to the Crown by special words in
the Bill. Counsel were heard at the Bar and the documentary evidence
was referred to a select committee, who reported that the Knight was
'a very well deserving innocent person' and the captain 'a very well
deserving innocent Protestant.' The House then resolved that they
would entertain these cases after the Bill had been read a third
time. Another committee was named to criticise the Bill, the chief
doubt being as to the sufficiency of the vesting clause. Those who
thought themselves aggrieved by the decisions under the first Act were
determined to leave nothing to chance. The third reading was taken on
November 29, and the House then proceeded to formulate its objections
in the shape of a petition to the Lord Lieutenant.[45]
[Sidenote: Two hard cases.]
The most important question raised by the Commons' petition concerned
the interpretation of words in the first clause, which vested in the
King all lands 'seized or sequestered by reason of the late horrid
rebellion which began on October 23, 1641.' Some lawyers held that it
was necessary to prove in each case separately that the owner of land
on that fatal day had been actually engaged in rebellion, a doctrine
which shook the title of all the men in possession. There was also
some doubt whether the new proprietors would hold their land in fee or
as tenants for life, but the Irish judges had decided in the former
sense. The Lord Lieutenant, first orally and then in writing, answered,
promising that doubts should be decided in a manner agreeable to the
parliamentary majority and to the intention of those who had passed the
Bill, which could only be amended by a subsidiary Act. Any attempt at
fresh legislation was dangerous where so many discontented persons were
involved, and the rock was avoided by asking the opinion of the English
judges on the first point. Ten of them, including Sir Orlando Bridgeman
and Rainsford, the late commissioner of claims, held that the disposal
of land within the meaning of the Act would of itself be good evidence
that it was vested in the King, and that the burden of proof lay upon
the party whose former property had been seized or sequestered. As to
Fitzgerald and Magill, whose lands had never been seized but who were
treated as if they had been, the House of Commons were of opinion that
they were innocent--nothing having been proved or even stated against
them. Counsel for the Knight of Kerry said their client was 'of English
extraction, never attainted, a matter rare in an Irish pedigree, but
constantly loyal.' In these hard cases Ormonde promised to do his best,
and this was something more than a common official answer since clause
159 provided that doubtful points might be decided by an order in
council having the force of law.'[46]
[Sidenote: Violent opposition to the Bill;]
[Sidenote: but it passes without a division.]
There was much discontent, especially among those who wished to fish in
the troubled waters of a new Bill. It was, however, decided by 93 to
74 that the Lord Lieutenant's answer was satisfactory, but a violent
debate took place upon the question that the Bill do now pass. Strong
language was hurled across the floor and many swords were half-drawn.
The December sun set upon a scene of confusion, and when candles were
called for they were quickly blown out by the opposition. Some shouted
that what they had gotten with the hazard of their lives should not be
lost with Ayes and Noes. Others called for an adjournment, and 'between
you and me,' says an eye-witness, the members, who were hungry as
well as angry, 'wanted very little of going to cuffs in the dark.' A
spontaneous adjournment followed, but the Bill passed quietly two days
later. A division was challenged by Archer Upton--who held some of
Antrim's land and lost all by his reinstatement--but he did not find
a seconder. Orrery kept his men so well in hand that only one Munster
member had voted in the minority, and he was a great advocate for the
doubling ordinance. Churchill attributed the final triumph entirely to
Ormonde, who 'by an eloquence peculiar to himself seemingly unconcerned
but certainly extemporary, so charmed their fears and jealousies
that they that were most displeased with the bill were yet so pleased
with the overtures he had made them that when it came to pass it had
only one negative.' It passed the Lords without a single dissentient
voice.[47]
FOOTNOTES:
[29] State Papers, _Ireland_, July 18, October 24, 1662. The
Commissioners are given in 15th Report of Record Commissioners (1825),
p. 34. Act for enlargement of time, _Irish Statutes_, 14 & 15 Car. II.
cap. 12 (Royal assent September 27, 1662).
[30] _Irish Commons Journal_, February 10, 1662-3; Clarendon to
Ormonde, February 28, in _Carte Transcripts_, vol. xlvii., and Lister's
_Life of Clarendon_, iii. 239.
[31] Speech of Sir Audley Mervyn delivered to the Duke of Ormonde in
the presence chamber in Dublin Castle, February 13, 1662-3, in _Irish
Commons Journal_, i. 617-630. The Speaker was ordered to have his
speech printed and entered in the Journals.
[32] _Egerton MS._, p. 789, gives all the decrees of the Court of
Claims, January 13, 1662-3, to Friday, August 21, 1663--Innocent
Papists 566, Innocent Protestants 141, Nocent 113. Mervyn's speech
(14 folio pages) in _Irish Commons Journal_, February 10, 1663; Lord
Lieutenant's letter, _ib._ March 10; proposed bills, _ib._ April 10.
Ormonde to Clarendon, February 21, March 7 and 12, April 8, 1662-3, to
the King, March 28, _Carte MSS._, vol. cxliii.; Clarendon to Ormonde,
February 28 and April 18, _Carte Transcripts_, vol. xlvii.
[33] Ormonde to the King, May 8, 1663, _Carte MSS._, vol. cxliii.; to
Bennet, _ib._ June 10 and August 22.
[34] A narrative by Sir Theophilus Jones, &c., _Trinity College MSS._,
_f._ 3, 18 (no. 47). This paper is unsigned but appears to be the
original draft in Jones's hand. Account of the Irish Plot in _Ormonde
Papers_, 1st series, ii. 251; Firth's _Ludlow_, appx. 450, 475. _Life
and death of the famed Mr. Blood_, London, 1680. _The Horrid Conspiracy
of impenitent traitors_, &c., London, 1663.
[35] State Papers, _Ireland_, May-July 1663, particularly James
Tanner's deposition, May 31, Sir George Lane to Bennet, June 25, and
Robert Lye to Williamson, July 16. The last is a graphic description of
the execution by an eye-witness. Lord Conway to Rawdon, November 18,
1663, in _Rawdon Papers_.
[36] Colonel Vernon to Williamson, July 1, 1663, in State Papers,
_Ireland_; Lane to Bennet (with inclosure), _ib._ November 18; Pardons
of Staples and Shapcote, _ib._ August 18, 1664. Patrick Adair's _True
Narrative_, chap. xvii.; Reid's _Presbyterian Church_, chap. xviii.;
Lang's _Hist. of Scotland_. Orrery to the Munster officers, May 25,
1663, in his _State Letters_, vol. i.; Sir Thomas Clarges to Ormonde,
May 15, in _Carte Transcripts_, vol. xxxii.; Firth's _Ludlow_, appx. vi.
[37] State Papers, _Ireland_, from June 22, 1661, to May 8, 1662.
Clarendon's _Life_, pp. 259-267.
[38] Carte's _Ormonde_, ii. 277-284. Clarendon's _Life_, Cont.,
262-269. Clarendon to Ormonde, July 18, 1663, _Carte Transcripts_, vol.
xxxii., and August 1, _ib._ vol. xxxiii. The King's letter of July
13 to the Lord Lieutenant and Council is in _Somers Tracts_, v. 626.
Documents calendared, State Papers, _Ireland_, under August 22.
[39] Dering's notes of the evidence are printed in Hill's _Macdonnells
of Antrim_, pp. 309-317, and the decree of innocence, _ib._ appx. 11.
The decree is signed by the majority, Rainsford, Beverley, Brodrick,
and Churchill. Dering, Smith, and Cooke, forming the minority, do not
sign. Ormonde saw the danger of inferring that Antrim acted under the
order of Charles I. Writing to Arlington on August 22, 1663, he says
it was argued but too plausibly 'that the King may as well declare any
of them who have most contributed to his restoration to be nocent ...
without proof as my Lord of Antrim to be innocent against proof ... no
security in an Act of Parliament,' _Carte MSS._, cxliii. 164.
[40] Act of Explanation, clause 172, s. 99. Arlington to Ormonde,
October 17 and 27, 1663, and January 30, 1663-4, in Tom Brown's
_Miscellanea Aulica_, and Ormonde's answer to the first, October 27,
in _Carte MSS._, vol. cxliii. _Murder will out_, published in London
between August 22 and October 17, and reprinted in _Somers Tracts_,
v. 624. Evelyn's _Diary_, August 18, 1683. Grant of quit-rents to St.
Albans, State Papers, _Ireland_, December 15, 1665. For some of St.
Albans' jobs see Carte's _Ormonde_, ii. 295.
[41] Bennet to Ormonde, October 27, 1663, in _Miscellanea Aulica_, and
November 17 _ib._; Clarendon, February 7, 1663-4, _Carte Transcripts_,
vol. xlvii. Lady Thurles to Ormonde, December 17, 1664, _Carte MSS._,
vol. ccxv.; J. Hughes to Williamson, 1664-5, State Papers, _Ireland_.
[42] Clarendon to Ormonde, April 16, 1664, January 30 and March 18,
1665-6, _Carte Transcripts_, vol. xlvii. Carte's _Ormonde_, ii. 302,
and Finch's report, _ib._ appx. no. 91. Temple's _Essay_, written in
1668. Clarendon's _Life_, Cont., 276, where one-third should be read
for one-fourth.
[43] _Irish Statutes_, 17 & 18 Car. II. cap. 2, especially clauses 4,
5, 6, 148, 159. Finch's report in Carte's _Ormonde_, ii. appx. 91.
[44] Arlington to Ormonde, August 19, 1665, in _Miscellanea Aulica_.
Sir Nicholas Armourer to Arlington, September 11, State Papers,
_Ireland_. Robert Leigh to Williamson, October 18, _ib._ Carte's
_Ormonde_, book vi. Armourer calls Lady Ossory 'the best woman in this
world.'
[45] _Irish Commons Journal_, October 26 to November 29, 1665.
[46] The petition is in _Irish Commons Journal_, December 11, and
Ormonde's answer in State Papers, _Ireland_, December 15. Opinion of
the English judges, _ib._ February 15, 1665-6.
[47] _Irish Commons Journal_, December 16-18, 1665. Leigh to
Williamson, December 16, State Papers, _Ireland_; Orrery to Arlington,
_ib._; Churchill to Arlington, December 27, _ib._