Ireland under the Stuarts and During the Interregnum, Vol. 3 (of 3), 1660-1690

by Richard Bagwell

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Declaration of the General Convention of Ireland, &c., newly brought over by a gentleman to the Council of State in England, London, 1660; Mercurius Politicus, 612 (Needham’s last number). Broghill reached Dublin on February 23, which occasioned much joy. Colonel Marcus Trevor to Ormonde, April 17 and 18, 1660, in Carte Transcripts, R.O., vol. xxx. Budgell’s Memoirs of the Boyles, 85-87, 3rd edition, 1737. Budgell was a disreputable person, but can scarcely have invented the story about Coote’s letter.

[2] Declaration of the General Convention of Ireland (dated March 12, 1659-60) with the late proceedings there, newly brought over by a gentleman to the Council of State in England, London, 1660; Ordinance of the General Convention ‘for speedy raising of money,’ April 24, 1660, in Marsh’s Library, Dublin; Lord Aungier to Ormonde, May 11, 1660, in Carte’s Original Letters; Declaration of General Convention, May 1, 1660, London and Dublin, 1660 (broadside); Proclamation of General Convention for proclaiming Charles II. (broadside), London and Dublin.

[3] Letter of Toby Bonnell, May 16, 1660, in English Hist. Review for January 1904.

[4] As a sample of the way in which Coote and Bury agreed to differ see their joint letter of October 4, 1660, in Cal. of State Papers, Ireland; Patrick Adair’s True Narrative, p. 236; Clarendon’s Life, Cont., pp. 124, 229; Eustace to Nicholas, October 3, 1660; Humble desires presented to His Majesty by the Commissioners of the General Convention, MS. Trin. Coll., June 20 and 21, 1600.

[5] Clarendon’s Life, Cont., pp. 125-128, 197-199; State Papers, Ireland, December 18 and 19, 1660. The instructions to Robartes calendared at July 1660 really belong to 1669.

[6] Rawdon to Conway calendared at March 17 and 28, 1660; Instructions for Broghill, Coote and others, n.d., but very soon after May 14 Irish nobility and gentry in London to Ormonde, May 6—the two last from Carte Transcripts, R.O., vol. xxx.; King’s speech to the Convention Parliament, July 27, Old Parliamentary Hist., xxii. 400.

[7] Proclamation of June 1, 1660 (broadside), reprinted in Old Parliamentary Hist., xxii. 311. Coote and Bury to Colonel Finch, September 3, and Lord Montgomery to Ormonde, October 31, 1660, enclosing letter from Jeremy Taylor—Carte Transcripts, vol. xxxi. George Rawdon to Lord Conway, January 23, 1660-1, in State Papers, Ireland. Ordinance of Irish Convention, March 1, 1660-1, in Marsh’s Library, Dublin.

[8] Taylor’s sermons of January 27 and May 8, 1661, in his Works, ed. 1839, vi. 301, 348. The words of Fuller’s anthem are in Mason’s Hist. of St. Patrick’s, 194, and in the 32nd Report of the Deputy Keeper of Public Records, 107. The opening lines are:

‘Now that the Lord hath readvanced the Crown,
Which thirst of spoil and frantic zeal threw down.’

And the concluding chorus:

‘Angels look down, and joy to see
Like that above a Monarchy.
Angels look down, and joy to see
Like that above an Hierarchy.’

[9] Proclamations of January 19, 21, and 22, 1660-1, in State Papers, Ireland, and the Lord Justice’s speech, ib. calendared at May 11.

[CHAPTER XLI]
DECLARATION AND ACT OF SETTLEMENT, 1660-1662

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]

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]

The Declaration.

Adventurers.

Soldiers.

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]

Innocent Papists.

Article men.

Ensignmen.

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]

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]

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]

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]

Composition of the Irish Parliament, May 1661.

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]

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.

In the Lords.

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]

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]

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]

Available area insufficient.

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 1000l. and who afterwards added 250l. would be credited with 2500l. 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 250l. would receive credit for 1500l. 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]

Incompatible claims.

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]

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]

Provisos in the Bill of Settlement.

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]

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]

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]

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]

The Clanmalier Estate.

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 4000l. 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]