repented their bargain, and desired the English would accept two-thirds and retrench one-third to increase reprisals. The English agreed to this, and so I was commanded to draw a new bill according to that model, and did so. And every paragraph was debated by a Committee of Council at Worcester House. And now both Irish and English were concerned that there should be no more innocents. The Irish first, because the principal men amongst them-the nominees-could not hope to escape as innocents. And, therefore, they never attempted during the execution of the former Act to bring on their claims as innocents, but rested under a provision made for them after reprisals; and, secondly, because the obscure freeholders would many of them escape as innocents for want of proof as they had done before. And so the new stock of reprisals which was to come by retrenchment of a third would vanish again. On the other side, the English, who had seen by what kind of deeds and proofs so many Irish had escaped before, and such Irish of whom His Majesty had little knowledge or consideration, they were desirous to put an end to all future practices of this nature, that so they might enjoy their two-thirds at least, discharged of all further clamour from the Irish. And thus by common consent of some who undertook for the English, and of those who acted for the Irish here, an end was put to all further considerations either of articles or innocence. And yet now they exclaim against it, though it were the effect of as formal a contract as anything of this nature is capable of. And, in diminution of this contract, the English did again consent that the nominees should be actually restored to their principal seats and the land about it, and to 2,000 acres more adjoining to the seats, if they had so much."1 1 Report of Sir Heneage Finch, Attorney-General, touching the Act of Explanation made in Council, February, 1670-1. (Carte, Appendix.) Carte's account of the compromise is to the same effect. "The Roman Catholics at last, to end all disputes, proposed that if, for the satisfaction of their interests, the adventurers and soldiers would part with one-third of the lands respectively enjoyed by them on 7th May, 1659, in consideration of their adventures and service, they were ready to agree to it. This proposal was in fine accepted. Thus was the settlement of Ireland at last effected by the common consent of the agents of all the several interests concerned."1 The result of the Act of Settlement and the Explanatory Act was that the Roman Catholics obtained possession of one third of Ireland. In other words, for their share in a rebellion exclusively promoted by them, they were punished by a confiscation of half their estates, having owned two-thirds of the kingdom before the rebellion broke out. But the Irish claimants never intended to abide by their offer, nor did they consider themselves bound by the compromise which they themselves had proposed. Six years after the passing of the Explanatory Act, they made. an attempt to overturn the entire Settlement. In 1670 they authorised Richard Talbot to present a petition to the King, complaining that those who had been dispossessed by the Parliamentary Government had expected to be restored to their estates on the return of the King, but that, for want of a full and just representation of their case, others now held their estates. In this petition there was not a word admitting "there ever was such a thing as the Irish Rebellion"; it was taken up with a laudation of their behaviour upon the peace in 1646, and that in 1648, both of which had been violated. The King 1 Carte, ii., p. 303. 3 and his brother, the Duke of York, were unfavourably disposed to the occupants of the forfeited lands, whom they disliked as non-conformists and republicans. A Committee of Inquiry into Irish affairs was issued by the King for the purpose of reviewing the Settlement, to the great uneasiness of all who desired the peace and security of Ireland. The English House of Commons at last interfered. In March, 1673, they petitioned the King, "that for establishing and quieting the possessions of your Majesty's subjects in that kingdom, your Majesty would be pleased to maintain the Act of Settlement and the Explanatory Act thereupon; and to recall the Commission of Inquiry into Irish affairs. . . as containing many new and extraordinary powers, not only to the prejudice of particular persons, whose estates and titles are thereby made liable to be questioned, but in a manner to the overthrow of the said Acts of Settlement. . . . And that Colonel R. Talbot, who hath notoriously assumed to himself the title of agent of the Roman Catholics in Ireland, be immediately dismissed out of all command, either civil or military, and forbid an access to your Majesty's Court."1 In consequence of this remonstrance the Commission was recalled. No further attempt was made in the reign of Charles II. to disturb the Settlement. The reign of James II. naturally divides itself into two periods. The first extends from his accession to his flight from England; the second from his arrival in Ireland in March, 1689, to his defeat at the Boyne. At the commencement of the year 1686, James's short-lived popularity in England had vanished, and was replaced by distrust and suspicion. His resolve to maintain a standing army, and to employ Roman Catholics in officering it, contrary 1 Parliamentary History, iv., p. 479. to law, gave rise to fears that he was aiming at absolute power, and intended a persecution of the Protestants similar to that then raging in France. The opposition to his plans in England, and the likelihood of their failure, determined him, as he told his friends, to provide for himself and them "a sure sanctuary and retreat in Ireland, if all those efforts should be blasted in England which he had made for their security " Mazure, the historian of the Revolution of 1688, informs us that in the commencement of his reign James had all the military posts in Ireland examined by Lord Dartmouth. His report, which is now before me, proves the design of destroying the preponderance of the English, and of forming in that country a system of defence for a case which afterwards happened, namely, the necessity of his taking refuge among the Irish Catholics ". He therefore resolved to establish Roman Catholic ascendency in Ireland, and to depress the Protestant or English interest, as it was then called, in order that he and his party might have a refuge or fortified camp to which they could retreat if things came to the worst. This was the policy which prompted his administration of Ireland during the first period of his reign, and which he only gave up for a time during the second in obedience to the counsels of Louis XIV. For we find that in the "Advice" bequeathed by him. to his son, he recommended him "to keep up a Catholic interest there, that at least in one of the kingdoms there may be a superiority of those of that persuasion though for the good of trade and improvement of that kingdom, the English interest must be supported, yet there must be great care taken not to trust them too 1 "Secret Consults," etc., State Tracts, iii., p. 616. far, they being generally ill-principl'd and republicans ".1 To carry out this policy, he determined to effect in Ireland, by his own authority, a complete revolution in all departments of the Government, civil, judicial and military. He chose as his instrument Richard Talbot, whom he created Earl of Tirconnell in June, 1685. Talbot had long been the agent at the English Court of the Irish party which desired the repeal of the Acts of Settlement. Accordingly, Tirconnell was sent over to Ireland during the interval between the recall of Ormond and the appointment of Henry, Lord Clarendon, while Archbishop Boyle and Lord Granard were Lords Justices. The first step was to disarm the Protestants. After Monmouth's rebellion, under the pretence that the Irish militia were well affected to his claims, an order came over from England that their arms should be taken from them and deposited in county magazines. The execution of this order was entrusted to Tirconnell, and the militia were disarmed. But this was not sufficient. It was resolved to disarm all Protestants, and to deprive them even of their private weapons which were necessary for the defence of themselves and their houses. Accordingly, "it was given out that if any arms were reserved under any pretence, such as that they were their own and not belonging to the public, it would be regarded as a proof of disaffection". The terror inspired by this menace was so great that the Protestants gave up the arms which they had bought with their own money. Though the proprietors were obliged by their patents to keep arms in readiness for the King's service, and the country was in a very disturbed state, they were deprived of all means of defence. We have the account of a debate 166 For my son, the Prince of Wales, 1692" (Clarke, Life of James II., ii., p. 619). 24 Secret Consults," etc. |