PART IV. FROM 1660 TO 1810. This division of my work embraces a most important period of Irish history, commencing with the restoration of Charles I. and terminating with the year 1810. I shall confine myself to four leading features of this period. I. The horrible injustice perpetrated on the Irish after the resto ration. II. The surrender of Limerick, with the civil conditions under which it was surrendered. III. The perfidious, violation of those conditions, whereby the Roman Catholics were robbed and plundered of their estates; deprived of their privileges as men; and reduced to a state of abject slavery, by the enaction of what Edmund Burke appropriately styled the "ferocious code of laws to prevent the growth of popery." IV. A sketch of the chief features of that vile code still in operation. CHAPTER XXXII. Restoration of Charles II. His base ingratitude. Horrible injustice. Bribery and corruption. Devouring lust of plunder. Five thousand Irish, who were plundered of their estates by Cromwell, deprived of even a hearing, and all chance of redress. "When Ingratitude, That sin of cowards, once takes root, a thousand "If there be a crime Of deeper die than all the guilty train Of human vices, 'tis ingratitude.”—Brooke. I NOW proceed to detail such scenes of fraud and villainy-of utter disregard of even the form or shadow of justice, as are not often paralleled, and imprint an eternal stigma on Charles II. his counselfors, the entire administration in Ireland, and most of the leading men in both kingdoms. Charles II. had, among the Roman Catholics, thousands of faithful subjects, who had fought his battles under Clanrickarde, Castlehaven, and Ormonde. Hundreds of them, with an ill-requited fidelity, had followed his bankrupt fortunes on the continent, at an enormous and ruinous expense. In two several speeches to parliament, immediately after his restoration, he acknowledged his obligations, and appeared to hold out a pledge of a determination to discharge them.* And if there had been a spark of honour or gratitude in his composition, he would have sacredly guarded their rights, and at least secured them justice at all events. But honour or gratitude formed no part of his character. I have shown, in the preceding chapter, on the evidence of lord Clarendon, that the "whole great kingdom [of Ireland] was taken from the just proprietors, and divided amongst those who had no other right to it, but that they had the power to keep it"-and from the duke of Ormonde, that there was "no other reason given for taking away men's estates than that they were Irish Papists," which, by the way, was one of the greatest possible crimes in that bigoted age. Their estates were generally in the possession of the armies that had fought against Charles I. and no small portion of them were held by those who had sat in judgment on him. From the monarch the Irish had every thing to hope, at least the full measure of justice; and those by whom they had been spoliated, had no claim to any favour. Rigid justice was the extent of hopes. But the Irish were treated with the most revolting injustice-while their spoliators experienced indulgence, favour, and liberality. Charles I. was publicly charged in the prints of the day, with adopting the odious principle of conciliating his enemies, and trusting to the principles and affections of his friends.959 Whether he acted systematically on this maxim, it is not possible to ascertain-but certain it is, that his conduct to the Irish, and to those who had deposed and beheaded his father, was in perfect conformity with it. Hundreds of the latter were enriched by the spoils of the former. In proof of this disgraceful and dishonourable fact, we have the testimony of lord Orrery,† who was one of the chief agents in "The king himself soon after his restoration, in his speech to the parliament, on the 27th of July, 1660, expresses himself in these words: "I hope I need say nothing of Ireland, and that they alone shall not be without the benefit of my mercy; they have shew'd much affection to me abroad, and you will have a care of my honour, and of what I have promis'd to them." And again on the 30th of November following, in his declaration for the settlement of Ireland, he says: "In the last place we did, and must always remember the great affection a considerable part of that nation express'd to us, during the time of our being beyond the seas, when with all cheerfulness and obedience they receiv'd and submitted to our orders, and betook themselves to that service, which we directed, as most convenient and behoofeful at that time to us, tho' attended with inconvenience enough to themselves. Which demeanor of theirs cannot but be thought very worthy of our protection, justice, and fa vour."960 † A conspiracy of the Puritans took place in Dublin, in conjunction with some of the same party in England, in 1665, for the purpose of overturning the monarchy, and setting up a republican government. One of the leading conspirators being brought before lord Orrery, he 959 Remarks on Burnet, 102. 960 Ireland's Case briefly stated, 70. the distribution of the plunder. Against such evidence in the case, there can be no appeal. Shortly after the restoration, an act of oblivion was passed, from which were excepted those who had an immediate hand in the late king's death, including Cromwell, Ireton, and Bradshaw, and others, who, although dead, were attainted and their estates forfeited. From the benefit of this act were "excluded all those persons who had any hand in plotting, contriving and designing the heinous rebellion of Ireland, or in aiding, abetting, or assisting the same." This was so interpreted, according to Leland, that "the whole Romish party was excluded. Thus by an outrageous abuse of power, and an utter violation of the sacred maxim, whereby every man is presumed innocent, till he is proved guilty, the whole body of the Catholics, without distinction or exception, were presumed guilty, and put to reproached him and his party with their base ingratitude, in attempting to overturn the government of a monarch, who had not only pardoned their rebellion, but rewarded their services in fighting against him, with the lands of those who had served him abroad!!! History might be ransacked in vain to find any parallel to the baseness of this proceeding: "I did, as well as I could, lay open to him the inexpressible mercy of his majesty to that vile party he had engaged himself with, not only pardoning to them their past crimes, but also giving them the lands of many, which had served under his royal ensigns abroad, to pay the arrears which had been contracted against his service at kome!!!??961 "To be neglected was enough; but to see the enemy triumph in their spoils, was more than nature could support. There are instances of some who were admitted into the royal presence and favour without being totally free from the blood of the king; while they, who had lavished their own in his defence, were suffered to starve on the pavement. The estates of the Irish who had fought for the king and followed his fortunes in exile, were confirmed to drummers and serjeants who had conducted his father to the scaffold."932 +In England, every rumour unfavourable to the Irish was received with peculiar avidity. Agents were sent from Ireland, who reported their conduct and designs with every offensive aggravation, so that before the landing of the king, the act of indemnity was so prepared as to exclude all those who had any hand in plotting or conbriving, aiding or abetting the rebellion of Ireland, by which the whole Romish party were in effect excluded: and when, by another clause, it was provided, that the act should not extend to restore to any persons the estates disposed of by authority of any parliament or convention, it was with some difficulty that an exception was inserted of "the marquess of Ormond, and other the Protestants of Ireland." Some other provisos were attempted, which must have utterly ruined all the old English families of this country, but they were suspended, and afterwards defeated by the marquess."963 951 Orrery, I. 238. 962 Remarks on Burnet, 103. 963 Leland, IV, 111. the proof of their innocence. To aggravate the severity and injustice of this proceeding, the rules by which nocency was established were of the most iniquitous character. One was, that every man who "No man was to be restored as an innocent Papist, who at or before the cessation on Sept. 15, 1643, was of the rebels party, or enjoyed his estate, real or personal, in the rebels quarters, (except the inhabitants of Cork and Youghall, that were driven into those quarters by force,) or who had entered into the Roman Catholic confederacy before the peace of 1646. Whoever had at any time adhered to the nuncio or clergy's party, or papal power, in opposition to the king's authority, or, having been excommunicated for adhering to his majesty's authority, had afterwards owned his offence in so doing, and been thereupon relaxed from his excommunication; whoever derived the title to his estate from any that died guilty of the aforesaid crimes, or pleaded the articles of the peace for his estate, or, living in the English quarters, held a correspondence with the rebels; whoever, before the peace in 1646, or that in 1648, sat in any of the confederate Roman Catholic assemblies or councils, or acted upon any commissions or powers derived from them; whoever employed agents to treat with any foreign papal power for bringing into Ireland foreign forces, or acted in such negociations; or had harassed the country as tories before the marquess of Clanricarde left the government; whoever came under any of these denominations, was not to be deemed an innocent Papist. One of these qualifications was certainly very rigorous, and the rigour of the law in many cases can hardly be distinguished from injustice. Abundance of Roman Catholics, well affected to the king, and very averse to the rebellion of their countrymen, lived quietly in their own houses, within the quarters of the rebels, who out of reverence to their virtues, or favour to their religion, allowed them to do so, though they never took_arms or engaged in any hostile act in opposition to his majesty. Such of them as had offered to take shelter in Dublin were by the lords justices banished thence on pain of death by public proclamation, and ordered to retire thence to their own houses in the country, where they could not help falling into the power of the rebels; and if these suffered them to live there in quiet, an equitable man, who considers the circumstances of those times, and the condition of all countries that are in a state of war, will hardly see any such iniquity in the receiving of that mercy, or in the unavoidable necessity they were under of living in their own houses, as should bring upon those persons a forfeiture of their estates."964 "These were the most material of the rules which the commons desired might be imposed on the court of claims. There were some others calculated to gain time, and put hardships on the claimants; as "that upon affidavit being made of a material witness refusing or neglecting to come in upon summons, such cause should be suspended; that claimants should try their title to lands before they should be admitted to prove their innocency, and both these should be done 964 Carte, II. 220. had enjoyed his estate in the rebels' quarters from the commencement of the insurrection to the cessation, in 1643, was, ipso facto, to be regarded as a rebel, and to be barred of all chance of recovering that estate. Nothing but the most rampant injustice and the most daring spirit of rapine could have devised such a rule. For the Roman Catholics of the pale, who had fled for refuge to Dublin, and freely tendered their services towards the suppression of the rebellion, had been banished from thence to their estates "under pain of death," and were therefore imperiously forced to proceed to a part of the country open to the rebels, and for a long time in their possession. It is difficult to conceive of any thing more flagitious, than that the government should punish them with forfeiture of their estates, for a course of conduct into which it had driven them, "under pain of death." One other item deserves serious consideration. Those who inherited estates of persons guilty of any of the crimes specified, among which "residence in the enemy's quarters" was one, were to undergo the same penalties as if actually guilty themselves, that is, to forfeit their estates. Thus, had lord Gormanston, lord Dillon, or lord Castlehaven, who were driven out of Dublin, "under pain of death," died in one or two months afterwards, and left an heir only a week old, by this vile regulation, that heir would incur a forfeiture of the estate, whatever might be its value!! before the defendant should be obliged to urge any crimination; that persons provided for to be restored by name to any estate, should not be allowed to claim it by innocency, or any other way than as mentioned in the clause for the nominees; and that no person claiming by innocency should be allowed to make any other claim, if adjudged nocent; that the claims of innocents be tried in the order of counties; and if the lands claimed lie in several counties, the claimant not to be heard till the last county came to be adjudged; and in case any person had put in a claim before the former commissioners, different from what he put in before the present, the best title for the king should be taken."965 "The qualifications of innocency required by those instructions, (particularly that whereby living in the Irish quarters was to be deemed a proof of guilt,) had been complained of as too severe; but as notwithstanding that severity, several of the Irish had proved their innocency, their adversaries, whose interest it was to involve them all without exception in the common guilt, were desirous to add to the rigour of those qualifications, and to make the proof of nocency so easy and general, that none of that nation might be able to escape censure, or save his estate."988 *This atrocious act of injustice was defended in a tissue of fraud and falsehood by sir Heneage Finch, attorney-general at the time of passing the act of settlement : "To have enjoyed a man's estate in the Irish quarters, was enough to make a man delinquent. 'Tis true, there is such a rule, and a 96 Carte, II. 264. 966 Idem, 263. |
