1660]

Charles II and Ireland

301

(3) IRELAND FROM THE RESTORATION TO THE ACT OF

RESUMPTION

(1660-1700)

In the fulness of his joy at finding himself safely seated on the throne of his fathers Charles II had expressed his desire to make his people as truly happy as he himself was. So far as Ireland was con

cerned, it was soon apparent that the attempt to make all happy was likely to end in gratifying nobody. There had been a rebellion in Ireland; the rebellion had been suppressed with the result that the greater part of the soil of the country had passed into the hands of those who had been instrumental in suppressing it. That the Irish had deserved their fate every Englishman was convinced. On the other hand the Irish were not slow to point out to Charles that the rebellion had been condoned by the treaties of 1646 and 1648-9, and that in sharing his exile with him they were entitled to share also his restoration. The argument, so long as no one enquired too closely into the premisses on which it was based, appeared plausible enough. But by accepting his restoration at the hands of the new settlers Charles had deprived himself of all choice in the matter. His decision to leave the decision of the question to Parliament was accepted as satisfactory by the Convention of Estates that met at Dublin in February, 1660. Being in possession, the colonists could afford to wait. But it was otherwise with the Irish, whose impatience to recover their forfeited properties led them in some isolated instances to attempt a forcible ejection of the new occupants. The latter did not fail to make the most of these disturbances, in order to impress upon their friends in England the danger of a fresh rebellion. Pressure was brought to bear on the King; and on June 1 strict orders were issued to suppress all such disorderly proceedings, and to confirm the adventurers and soldiers in the temporary possession of their estates. Still, there can be no question that Charles was seriously anxious to gratify, as far as he possibly could, all reasonable claims on the part of his quondam allies; and, being led to believe that a sufficient fund of lands existed to enable him to do so, without touching the interests of the adventurers and soldiers, he issued, on November 30, a Declaration for settling the affairs of Ireland.

302

The Declaration and Act of Settlement

[1660-3 The Declaration (afterwards embodied in the Act of Settlement) was admirably calculated to satisfy everybody, on the one condition that sufficient lands could be found for the purpose. The plan on which it was based had been suggested by the agents of the new settlers, in the belief that few Irish would be able to prove their innocency. To make sure of this point, they took care that in selecting the commission before which the Irish were to plead their claims, their own interests should be exclusively represented. But in this they overshot their mark. For, after wasting much time and displaying incredible partiality, the commission was dissolved. Checked in this direction, the new settlers (or, as they called themselves, "the English interest ") found themselves suddenly attacked by the old settlers (nicknamed "the Irish interest"), who pointed out that, if there was a deficiency of land to satisfy the Irish according to the King's intentions, it could easily be made good by forcing the adventurers to disgorge the lands they had illegally acquired under the so-called Doubling Ordinance of 1643. The controversy waxed hot in the Parliament which met in May, 1661; and the new settlers, finding themselves likely to be outvoted if they tried to pass the Declaration as it stood, effected a compromise, by which it was agreed to refer the matter to the King in Council. Backed by English opinion, they hoped to recover in London what ground they had lost in Dublin. But as Ormond, whom Charles appointed Lord Lieutenant in November, clearly recognised, the question, though veiled as one between the old and new settlers, was in reality a contest between the latter and the Irish claiming restoration. The Irish, with the support of the old settlers, held a strong position. Unfortunately, by disclaiming the character of rebels and by insisting too strongly on the simple justice of their demands, they managed to put themselves in a false position. The production of the original instructions from the Supreme Council to their agents abroad, authorising them to dispose of the kingdom to any Catholic Prince who would take it under his protection, settled the matter against them. The debates in Council which had threatened to prove interminable found a sudden conclusion; and the Bill for the Settlement of Ireland, being returned to the Irish Parliament, passed in May, 1662, and received the royal assent in September.

As a concession to the Irish a commission, consisting of seven Englishmen nominally unconnected with any interest in Ireland, was appointed to decide the claims to innocence. The Commissioners opened their Court on September 20; but it was not till January 13, 1663, that they actually began their sittings. More than 4000 claims for restoration, it was said, had been entered. By the end of the month only twentyseven cases had been decided; but, of these, twenty-one had been admitted. The Cromwellians were alarmed. Complaints of partiality were raised against the Commissioners. A proposal to require proofs of innocency more stringent than those already exacted was not carried out;

1663-9] An Act of Explanation.

Trade restrictions 303

but the dissatisfaction caused by the proceedings of the Commissioners grew from day to day. A plot to overturn the Government was detected and several individuals implicated in it were executed. The incident exercised a sobering effect on all parties. Urged by their fears, the Cromwellians expressed a readiness to come to terms. Their offer to surrender one-third of the estates in their possession on May 7, 1659, was accepted; and on this basis a Bill for the Explanation of the Act of Settlement was drawn up and, after various interruptions, became law on December 23, 1665.

The end had come at last. Taking the total arable land of Ireland at Sir William Petty's estimate of about seven and a half million plantation acres, and discriminating three sets of proprietors, viz. (1) the native interest, including families of Anglo-Norman descent; (2) the Irish interest, i.e. the planters introduced by Elizabeth and James I, including the Church of Ireland; (3) the English interest, i.e. the Cromwellian element, it would appear that by the operation of the Acts of Settlement and Explanation an equal portion of land (or about two and a half million acres) was definitely assigned to each class. Of the multitude, who could expect no hearing in the new Court of Claims that opened its sittings on January 4, 1666, to administer the Acts, hundreds took to the congenial calling of Tories (outlaws).

The settlement had not come a minute too soon. The economic crisis through which England was at this time passing had led to a strong demand for protection against the introduction of Irish live stock into the English market. An Act had accordingly been passed in 1663, limiting the importation of Irish cattle to the first six months of the year. The measure, though it pressed heavily on Ireland, only slowly recovering from the ravages of war, was not attended with the success that had been predicted for it; and in October, 1665, a Bill was introduced absolutely prohibiting the importation of all live stock from Ireland. The Bill was opposed in the House of Lords; and, the prorogation of Parliament having put a temporary stop to proceedings, it was hoped that the generous contribution of 30,000 head of Irish cattle towards the relief of London, after the Great Fire, would incline the English Commons to a more liberal treatment of the Irish landowners. These hopes were disappointed. For no sooner had Parliament reassembled in the autumn of 1666, than the Commons promptly agreed to a Bill for the virtual exclusion of all great cattle, sheep, and swine as well as of all beef, pork, and bacon, on the ground that such imports were destructive of the prosperity of the country and a "common nuisance." On January 18, 1667, the Bill, after a fierce contest in the House of Lords, received the royal assent. The consequences of the measure were soon apparent. From statistics taken at the time it appears that whereas in 1665 57,545 oxen and 99,564 sheep were exported from Ireland, in 1669 the number had fallen to 1454 oxen and 1120 sheep. On the other

304 The woollen industry. — Religious toleration [1667–9

hand, barrelled beef, butter, tallow, hides, and above all wool, which rose from 131,013 stone to 254,760, showed a remarkable increase. These statistics are significant. By closing the English market against Irish live stock, the Act practically killed the chief existing Irish industry. Unable to find a market for their lean cattle the Irish landowners turned their land into sheep-walks and took to fattening their own stock for the provision trade. Irish wool was of excellent quality; but its exportation (except to England) was severely restricted, and finding no legal outlet for it the Irish established a woollen industry of their own. Owing largely to Ormond's encouragement the industry began to flourish. English capital found its way into the country; skilled labour was introduced; and, though debarred by the Act of Navigation from directly participating in the colonial trade, Ireland, owing to the cheapness of living and labour, was ere long able not merely to compete with England but even to undersell her in the European market. The linen manufacture revived. Other trades followed in the wake of the chief industries; and for twenty years Ireland enjoyed a period of unexampled commercial prosperity.

As a result, religious discord lost much of its asperity. No doubt, the restoration of Episcopacy and the ejection of their ministers caused much bitter feeling among the Presbyterians of Ulster, especially where they constituted the bulk of the population. But such struggles as those which soured the existence and frustrated the labours of Jeremy Taylor in the diocese of Down and Connor were happily exceptional; and it may be said that throughout the whole reign the position of the Protestant nonconformists in Ireland contrasted favourably with that of their fellows in England and Scotland. Nor had the Roman Catholics much reason to complain. The policy inaugurated by the Commonwealth of excluding them from corporate towns was theoretically maintained; but there was no attempt made to interfere with individual liberty of conscience or to exclude them from the higher professions. Ormond, whese object was to stimulate a feeling of loyalty to the Crown by repressing the religious bigotry of both Protestants and Catholics, had, shortly after assuming the government, been much gratified by the presentation of an address by Peter Walsh, a Franciscan friar, on behalf of a number of Catholic clergy and gentry, protesting their unfeigned loyalty to the Crown and disclaiming all foreign power "either papal or princely, spiritual or temporal." The Loyal Remonstrance, as it was called, was greeted with contumely by the Ultramontanes; but it afforded Ormond the opportunity he wanted of drawing a distinction between loyal and disloyal Roman Catholicism. Whether his policy of playing one party off against the other, with the avowed object of ultimately weakening both, would have been followed by the success he expected may be doubted; but it was certainly attended by a more tolerant treatment of the Catholics generally.

1669-77]

Ormond recalled.

Catholic intrigues

305

Before, however, it had time to fully develop, Ormond was recalled. The real reason of his removal, though veiled by charges of issuing a commission of martial law in time of peace, and of misapplication of the revenue, is to be found in the intrigues which had led to the downfall of his friend the Earl of Clarendon. His successor, Lord Robartes, owed his appointment to the zeal with which he had advocated the claim of the Crown to exercise a dispensing power in the matter of religious tests; but, having during his six months of office managed to render himself personally objectionable to all classes of the community, except to the more rigid Presbyterians, with whose tenets he sympathised, he retired in a huff in May, 1670. He was followed by John Lord Berkeley of Stratton. Berkeley's appointment, though. apparently devoid of political significance, was like that of Robartes, a step carefully calculated in the spirit of the Treaty of Dover. Of a naturally indolent disposition, Berkeley, through his wife and his secretary, Sir Ellis Leighton, was entirely under Catholic influence.

With Leighton's assistance Richard Talbot, better known by his subsequent title of Duke of Tyrconnel, and his brother Peter, the recently-appointed titular Archbishop of Dublin, speedily effected a radical change in the conduct of public affairs. Not only was the favour that had hitherto been shown to the Remonstrants withdrawn and a systematic attempt made to prosecute them out of existence; but, under colour of carrying out the King's intentions, a number of Catholics were placed on the Commission of the Peace, and a proclamation was issued in March, 1672, dispensing with the Oath of Supremacy as a condition of their admission to the Corporations. Moreover, at Talbot's instigation, the King consented to the appointment of a committee to consider the desirability of instituting an "impartial " enquiry into the execution of the Acts of Settlement. The indignation of the Protestants was unmistakable; and, foreseeing a storm in Parliament, Charles prudently transferred the government to Arthur Capel, Earl of Essex, a zealous Protestant. As he had anticipated, the English Parliament had no sooner met than a vigorous address was presented to him in March, 1673, insisting on the maintenance of the Acts of Settlement, the revocation of the Commission of Enquiry, and the removal of Talbot from his counsels. Charles yielded. All the same, he had no intention of surrendering the advantage he had gained. Essex gradually began to perceive which way the wind was blowing. For himself he was willing enough to pursue a neutral policy; but, to his credit, he was too honest to become a mere tool for the subversion of the Protestant interest and for exploiting the country in the interests of the harpies that battened on the extravagance of the King. When he refused to carry on the government without being allowed to exercise any control over the revenue, he was recalled (1677).

The unexpected reappointment of Ormond was hailed with satisfaction

C. M. H. V.

20