CHAPTER XII

IRELAND UNDER CHARLES II

The Declaration of Breda: Difficulty of Carrying Out its Provisions in Ireland. In the Declaration issued from Breda before his return to England, Charles had promised that, with certain exceptions-those, as it afterwards appeared, of the regicides who had signed Charles I's death-warrant-none of his subjects, "of what degree of guilt soever," should find, that "any crime whatsoever " committed against either his father or himself should "ever rise in judgment or be brought in question. against any of them, to the least endangerment of them, either in their lives, liberties or estates." This he guaranteed, "upon the word of a King solemnly given." To carry this out literally, as regards the disposal of the Irish land which had been confiscated under the Cromwellian Settlement, appeared impossible. The Planters who held it had received it in return for money subscribed or military service rendered to the rebel English Parliament. If deprived of it, they would obviously be made to suffer for acts done in aid of a rebellion against the King. On the other hand, the Irish proprietors had been dispossessed of these same lands for a rebellion also, but which might be held to be one either against the Parliament or against the King. In the one case, they, from the Royalist point of view, merited rather reward than punishment; in the other, the confiscation of their property, if maintained, would violate the undertaking given in the Declaration. But if the old proprietors were to have their lands restored, the Planters must lose them. Faith must thus, it appeared, be broken with one side or the other. It soon appeared which party was to suffer.

The partisans of the late Government, and especially the army, were still strong and in power. Charles dared not run the risk of offending them. On the other hand, the old Royalists in Ireland, and the remains of the Confederate parties, were weak and depressed. They might safely be ignored.

Charles himself was not unwilling to do justice to the Irish, but he was too selfish to run the smallest risk of having "to go again on his travels" for any person or any cause.

Arrangements Regarding the Irish Lands.-In November (1660) a Declaration regarding the Settlement of Ireland " was issued by the King. He began by acknowledging the great services rendered to him by Irish officers and soldiers during his exile. He then went on to set forth the difficulty of reconciling the different interests in Ireland, and to mention the readiness which the army had displayed to help in his Restoration. Finally, he concluded by the announcement that, though in strict justice the soldiers and adventurers had no title to the lands which they held, yet he would yield to mercy and suffer them to retain them. The second part of the Declaration outlined the arrangements to be made.

It was in accordance with the terms of this document that the Act for the Settlement of Ireland," which was put before the Irish Parliament in May 1661, was passed. The Preamble was intended to convey the impression that, the Catholic Irish having rebelled against Charles I, certain of his loyal Protestant subjects had subdued them, and, during the "absence" of his present Majesty, deprived them, as a punishment for their rebellion, of their estates. Having done this, they at once proceeded to recall the King, and place themselves and the people whom they had conquered under his authority. According to this "amazing piece of historical fiction," as it has been aptly styled, the adventurers and soldiers had, the one contributed their money, the other hazarded their lives to reduce the Papist rebels to obedience to the Crown. If this were so, it would follow that they should not be deprived of the rewards which they had so well merited.

In the arrangements regarding the disposal of the lands which followed, great consideration was shown to the adventurers and soldiers, who were confirmed in the grants made them under the Cromwellian Settlement. In case, however, that the owner whom they had dispossessed was adjudged to be an "innocent" person, one that is who had taken no part whatever in the Irish rebellion, had not lived in "rebel quarters,' or communicated with rebels, the Cromwellian planter should at once yield up the land to him, but should be fully

reprised" elsewhere, receiving an equal number of acres. Certain nominees of the King, a list of whose names is given, were also to be restored; in some cases immediately, in others only after land for "reprisals" had been found for the ejected planter. In the case of the

Ensign men," those who had followed the King's fortunes abroad, and in that of" Article men," who had accepted terms of peace during the Civil War, the condition of the previous reprisal of the man in possession was to be rigidly enforced. In actual fact the ancient proprietor was, by such a proviso, in the vast majority of cases prevented from ever

regaining his property at all. Thus, only some "nominees" and "innocents were really likely to derive benefit from the Act, except where the estate of an "article man " or ensign man" still remained unassigned in the hands of the authorities.

To carry out the provisions of the Act fairly and honestly it would be needful, as Ormond remarked, to discover a new Ireland. The land available for the purpose was, first, some portions which had been confiscated, but not yet granted to anyone; secondly, a certain amount which could be resumed by disallowing the " Doubling Ordinance " of 1643, by which an adventurer who added twenty-five per cent. to his original subscription became entitled to a double number of acres ; thirdly, the regicides' estates; and lastly, whatever, on investigation, should prove to have been fraudulently acquired by the Planters, over and above their just due. All this, however, would not nearly suffice to reprise the ejected Cromwellians, if any considerable number of the old proprietors were to be reinstated. To make the Act workable at all, the only method to pursue was to make reinstatement as difficult as possible, by throwing obstacles which few could surmount in the way of the Irish claimants. This in effect was done without scruple.

Injustice Done to the Irish Landowners.-A Commission of seven was appointed to try the cases concerning the confiscated lands. Of the 820 old proprietors whose claims were considered in the seven months during which the Commission sat, the great majority succeeded in proving their " innocency." The Parliament grew alarmed, and it was decided that, after August 21st, 1663, no more cases should be heard. The number of cases which remained uninvestigated when the Commission terminated its sittings was certainly some thousands. Some of the unheard claimants succeeded subsequently in having their titles to the lands which they had taken in Connacht confirmed; but many had taken no such lands and were wholly destitute. Of the amount of land actually restored we have no complete evidence. On this point authorities differ very widely. Many of the orders for restoration were evaded; some old proprietors, who had failed to obtain such an order, succeeded in buying out the Cromwellian occupant at a cheap rate.

In 1664 an Act of Explanation, intended to make more land available for "reprisals," was passed by the Irish Parliament. By it the adventurers and soldiers were obliged to part with one-third of the lands assigned them under the Cromwellian Settlement. Those who benefited by this were, however, chiefly certain named persons of influence.

When the treatment meted out to the Irish is considered, it is but fair to remember that the old Celtic party, and some of the Anglo-Irish,

had joined the Confederation and taken part in the Civil War to further their own cause rather than that of the King. Still, amongst the latter, there were numbers of sincere and ardent Royalists, while the offences of even the worst of the former against the House of Stuart were incomparably less than those of the Cromwellians. Yet it was to the latter that Charles II elected to show mercy " at the expense, not only of delinquents of lesser guilt, but also of that of hundreds whose devotion had merited from him the greatest rewards he had power to bestow."

State of Ireland during the Reign of Charles II.-Although the reign opened with disappointed hopes and cruel deception for large numbers of the King's Irish subjects, yet its course of twenty-five years was not altogether unprosperous for the country in general. The Act of 1667, which forbade the export of Irish cattle to England, certainly caused widespread distress, but the wool-trade flourished and woollen cloth was sent in great quantities to England and abroad.

Sir William Petty's "Political Anatomy of Ireland" gives us much information regarding the state of the country about 1672. He estimates the population at that time as rather over a million, of whom more than half were very poor, dwelling in wretched cabins, sleeping on straw, and living, as a rule, on milk and potatoes. Wages were low, but necessities so cheap that a family of six persons could live on about £16 a year. Many were well educated. French was not unknown, and the Latin tongue was "very frequent amongst the poorest Irish and chiefly in Kerry." Trade was much fettered by restrictions, and to this and the uncertainty of land-tenure, was due, to a great extent, the laziness with which the Irish were frequently reproached.

The Established Church.-In Ireland, as in England, the Protestant Episcopalian Church was, immediately after the Restoration, replaced in the position of dignity and authority from which it had been degraded by the Parliamentary Government. The lands of the Sees were restored and the numerous vacancies in the episcopal bench at once filled, in most cases by the appointment of Englishmen. The revenues were sufficiently large to prove attractive to these strangers. The Primate received £5,000 a year; the Archbishop of Dublin £3,000. On the other hand, most of the lower clergy were badly paid, some being expected to subsist on £16 or £20 per annum, the amount which Petty notes as barely sufficient for the maintenance of a labourer and his family.

The restored Church showed a tendency to visit on the Dissenters the humiliations which, for some ten years, she had endured at their hands. Stern discipline was enforced, and an order was made that ministers who refused to use in public services the prescribed liturgy, and to declare on oath their belief that resistance to the authority of the

King was always and under all circumstances unlawful, should be ejected from their livings. This, in a good many cases, was actually done. On the whole, however, the laws against the Dissenters were not strictly carried out, and their lot compared very favourably with that of their brethren in England at this period.

as

Treatment of the Catholics.-The Catholic Church in Ireland was not at this period regarded, as we hear she was some fifty years later, an old lion with its teeth drawn." Her influence and the power of her followers was feared by those who remembered the Confederation Government and the deeds of Eoghan Ruadh. Partly on account of this fear, and partly owing to the influence direct or indirect of the King, whose leanings to Catholicity were well known to his ministers, the persecuting laws against the Irish Catholics, though none of those passed in the preceding reigns were repealed, and some were even added, were generally little enforced. The Deputy, Essex (1669), strongly opposed a project for extending to Ireland the penal code against the Catholics which was in force in England. He warned the Government that, if this were attempted, and especially if the secular clergy were banished, there would be serious trouble, and it would be needful to keep large bodies of troops under arms all over the country to hold the people in check.

Isolated acts of severity, generally due to the anti-Catholic zeal of some official, frequently took place. Thus, in 1670, Lord Ossory boasts that he has turned the Catholics out of the city of Limerick. In most cases, however, positive persecution was only exercised against the clergy. Priests were often fined and imprisoned; sometimes for special acts, as publicly denying the King's Supremacy; sometimes for exercising ecclesiastical jurisdiction on Papal authority. At times there was a wave of ill-feeling towards the Catholics in the English Parliament, which soon made itself apparent in Ireland, by official acts of the King and his Council. Thus, in 1673, a Proclamation was issued requiring all Catholic archbishops, bishops, ecclesiastical dignitaries and regular priests to quit the country. Very few of the clergy appear to have taken any heed of the order, but the Bishop of Clogher declared that he had been obliged to fly to the woods. Even the highest dignitaries of the Catholic Church were very poor, and obliged to live in the humblest way. In 1673, of 120 parishes in the diocese of Ossory, only twenty-eight had a parish priest. Sometimes a priest served six parishes.

Even at times of the greatest lenity, Catholics were excluded from all considerable public offices, and only very few of them attained, by the connivance of the authorities, to even the lower ones. They could not administer justice, become Privy Councillors, members of Corporations, or Fellows of a University.