Page:Confiscation in Irish history.djvu/207

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
THE RESTORATION SETTLEMENT
195

was as nothing compared to the ruin it brought on most of the Irish.[1]

For it excluded once for all from all hope of restoration the unheard innocents, those claiming the articles of peace, and the Ensignmen except such few of this last class as had been lucky enough to recover possession before the passing of the Act. This had happened only in those few cases where the lands had not actually been set out to any Cromwellian. Furthermore it deprived the King of the power of restoring innocents to their property in Corporations given him by the Act of Settlement. As a slight set off those of the Irish who had obtained Royal letters of restoration, and had been able to profit by them through the accident that there was no Cromwellian in possession, were now confirmed, provided they had been in actual possession on August 23rd, 1663. In this way, for example, the Mac Gillicuddy of the Reeks recovered his vast tracts of mountain and bogland. It is true that the confirmation was to extend only to the principal seat and 2,000 acres; but in this case the King ordered that as the land was so poor the computation was to be made "by a reduced column," i.e., casting in many acres for one to make it valuable.[2]

There was a further concession or what was meant as such. Twenty-two persons were to be restored to their principal seat and to 2000 acres adjoining provided that they had had so much in

  1. Winston Churchill is especially strong on the injustice done to the Irish. He speaks of "the wickedness of the Bill" (Cal. St. Paps., 1663—65, p. 248: see also pp. 255—6). So, too, Sir Wm. Domville condemned it.
  2. Cal. St. Paps. 1669—70: addenda, p. 678.