tained upwards of 4,300,000 acres.

In that province

much land had been concealed or unjustly detained from the Crown; many tenures in capite had been suppressed and the dues on them withheld; and many estates had been seized by the strong hand during and after the Insurrection, 1595-1603. In some cases, as in that of Lord Wilmot, President of Connaught, the King's lands and rents had been fraudulently alienated for private gain. Of the 4,300,000 acres in Connaught, Strafford hoped to recover only 120,000.2 From the plantation were to be excepted the whole county of Leitrim, Church lands, and all estates held under letters-patent from the Crown, or under conveyances from Richard de Burgo and his heirs, who in the fourteenth century were possessed of twenty-five of the thirty cantreds which made up the whole of Connaught.3 These exceptions and limitations, together with the small proportion which Strafford expected to recover for the Crown, enable us to estimate the exaggeration with which this proposed plantation has been described. That no man's freehold was invaded by Strafford's government, and no just title set aside, we have

whole county doth not as highly import the service as to have it found by a jury."-Knowler, ii., p. 35.

1 See "Wilmot's Confession to the King" [Knowler, i., p. 477]. Lord Wilmot was brought to book by Strafford for robbing the King, as Lord Cork was for appropriating the lands of the Church.

4 Not only exaggeration, but mere confusion. Mr. Lecky, treating of the Connaught plantation, says that "a grant of four shillings in the pound was given to the Chief Justice and Chief Baron out of the first yearly rent upon the commissions of defective titles". The Commission for Defective Titles had nothing whatever to do with the plantation of Connaught. It was the most popular measure ever proposed in Ireland. The judges attached to it did not decide on the validity of titles, or on the amount of the composition to be made respecting them. See "Answer of the Judges to the Questions proposed to them by the Irish Parliament," Nalson, ii., p. 575.

both positive and negative evidence of the greatest value. In 1640, six years after Strafford had sent his Commission. into Connaught, the Irish Commons-before their fatal alliance with the English Opposition-returned thanks to the King for having appointed Strafford to the government of the kingdom, "who by his great care and travail of body and mind, sincere and upright administration of justice without partiality, increase of your Majesty's revenue without the least hurt or grievance to any your Majesty's well disposed and loving subjects, and our great comfort and security by the large and ample benefits which we have received and hope to receive by Your Majesty's Commission of Grace for remedy of defective titles, procured hither by his Lordship . . . for this your tender care over us, showed by the deputing and supporting so good a Governor, we acknowledge ourselves more bound than we can with tongue or pen express." November, 1640, the same body presented, in Strafford's absence, to his deputy a Remonstrance of Grievances, consisting of sixteen heads, which was made use of on Strafford's trial.2 In this there is not a word about the. plantation of Connaught, though they complain that the plantation in the county of Londonderry had been weakened. Nor is there any mention of Connaught in the Protestation against Strafford and his Government, which they made in February, 1641.3 Every charge, which the managers of his Impeachment could collect, was urged against him, and every Act of his Irish Administration ripped up, yet in the Eighteen Articles which refer to his Irish Government there is no mention of the

1 Preamble to Act, 15 Charles I., c. 13.

In

2 Journals of the Irish Commons, i., p. 162. Rushworth, viii., p. 11. Protestation against the Earl of Strafford and his Government," Ib., i., p. 176.

Connaught plantation. In the seventh article, he was accused of having dispossessed Lord Dillon of his lands, and of causing divers others of His Majesty's subjects to be put out of possession and disseised of their freeholds, whereby many hundreds of His Majesty's subjects were undone and their families utterly ruinated". This article was dropped by the managers, and no evidence was offered on it.1 Nor are these the only proofs that the proposed plantation of Connaught was not considered a grievance in Ireland. When both Houses, in November, 1640, sent agents over to England to lay their grievances before the King, they gave no directions to mention this for one, neither did their agents "ever attend His Majesty to complain thereof, or desire redress therein, until His Majesty freely offered to depart with his title to the former proprietors. But, on the contrary, did by their letter importune His Majesty that he would not part with his title to those counties and lands, and that the plantation of English Protestants might proceed as formerly intended."

"2

And lastly, in the June following the departure of Strafford, the Irish Commons read a bill the second time "for securing of the plantations to be made in the several counties of Roscommon, Sligo, Mayo, Galway, the town of Galway, Clare, Limerick and Tipperary." 3

1 Rushworth, viii., pp. 64, 220.

2 Declaration of the Commons [English] Assembled in Parliament, July 25, 1643; Rushworth, v., p. 346.

3 Commons Journals, i., 145. Leitrim is not mentioned, as that county was not to be included in the proposed plantation of Strafford.

CHAPTER VI.

THE IRISH PARLIAMENTS IN THE REIGNS OF JAMES I. AND CHARLES I.

HAVING considered the circumstances of Ireland and the affections of its inhabitants, we may now pass to the proceedings of the three Parliaments which were held in the reigns of James and Charles. In 1613, twenty-seven years had elapsed since a meeting of that body. Towards the end of 1611, the Deputy announced the King's intention of calling a parliament, and invited the subjects to exhibit their grievances. He also stated that the King thought it meet to erect new boroughs for the encouragement of the plantation in Ulster, and to draw inhabitants to other places which were thinly peopled. This announcement caused the most extraordinary excitement throughout Ireland. In November, 1612, six Roman Catholic Lords of the Pale addressed a letter to the King, asserting that they had not been consulted about the Bills to be transmitted to England, inveighing against the design of erecting new boroughs, complaining of the oath of supremacy and intimating the danger of a revolt. When the writs were issued, the country became a scene of universal agitation. The Lords of the Pale, who were discontented because, as they alleged, the new nobility enjoyed more of the confidence of the Government than themselves, sent agents into all parts of the kingdom to solicit the voters 1 Curiosa Hibernica, i., 249.

of better rank, while the priests and lawyers laboured among the inferior classes. The Jesuits and clergy denounced excommunication against those who should support a Protestant. No art or industry was omitted to carry elections for their party. Oaths of association, promises, threats, etc., were freely made use of to deter the electors from voting for any one who attended the reformed worship. When a Roman Catholic was elected, the successful candidate was received on his way by men, women and children with shouts of applause and admonitions to take care of the Catholic religion. The cause of all this excitement was the Roman Catholic clergy were afraid that the statute, which had been passed in England against Jesuits and missionary priests would be enacted in the new Parliament.

The day before the meeting of Parliament, which was fixed for the 18th of May, 1613, ten Roman Catholic lords presented an address to the Deputy, in which they questioned the King's prerogative to erect new boroughs, found fault with the late elections, excepted against the Deputy's guard of one hundred men, and against holding the Parliament in the castle, on the ground that it might be blown up after the manner lately adopted in England.3

When the Parliament met on the following day, the Deputy, sitting in the Lords, invited the Commons to choose a Speaker, and recommended Sir John Davis for the office. On the return of the Commons to their own House, Sir Thomas Ridgway proposed Sir John Davis; whereupon Sir James Gough rose and said that he saw many in the House who had been sent from the new boroughs, and that others had been improperly elected in

1 Carte, i., p. 19. Ryves, lib. ii., p. 15.

2 O'Sullivan, p. 308.

3 Cal. State Papers, Ireland, 1611-14, p. 342.