1 Bottigheimer, K. S., ‘The Restoration land settlement in Ireland: a structural view’ in I.H.S., xviii, no. 69 (Mar. 1972), p. 2.Google Scholar

2 Carte, Thomas, The life of James, first duke of Ormonde (2nd ed., 6 vols, Oxford, 1851), iv, 31.Google Scholar

3 5 June 1649 is the date that orders were issued to Cromwell to march with his army to the port of Chester to begin the reduction of Ireland. For the specific purposes of settling the arrears of the parliamentarian soldiers, contemporaries used this date to distinguish between those parliamentarians who had served in Ireland earlier and the army which Cromwell took to Ireland with him.

4 Dunlop, Robert (ed.), Ireland under the Commonwealth: being a selection of documents relating to the government of Ireland from 1651 to 1659 (2 vols, Manchester, 1913), ii, 396.Google Scholar

5 The ‘mile-line’ was the term used to identify land stretching from the coast one mile inland in the province of Connacht and one mile westward from the river Shannon.

6 The Irish statutes revised, 1310–1800 (London, 1885), clause ix, pp 94–5. A further clause stipulated that they were to receive 12s. 6d. in the pound of what was due to them, thus reducing their claim.

7 ‘Proclamation by the commissioners for executing the king’s declaration for the settlement of Ireland’, 19 Mar. 1660 (P.R.O., SP 63/309/5-10). The names of these thirty-two commissioners can be seen in Rec. comm. Ire. rep., 1821–5, p. 31.

8 Rec. comm. Ire. rep., 182–5, pp 32–5. Their names were: Viscounts: Henry Moore, Arthur Annesley, John Massereene; Lords: Francis Aungier, John Kingston, Richard Coloony; Knights: James Ware, Theophilus Jones, Robert Newcomen, Arthur Forbes, Richard Lane, Patrick Weymes, George Lane, John Stevens (or Stephens), Audley Mervyn, William Flower; Colonels: Marcus Trevor, Arthur Hill, Charles Coote, Francis Fowkes; Captains: Robert Fitzgerald, Hans Hamilton, Robert Warde, Richard Gething; Sergeant-Majors: George Rawdon, Thomas Harmon; Dr William Petty, Alderman Daniel Bellingham, Brian Jones, Richard Stevens, James Cuffe, Samuel Bathurst.

9 ‘Petition to the king of the commissioned officers who served King Charles I in Ireland before 5 June 1649’, Dec. 1660 (P.R.O., SP 63/305/126). The individual letters patent issued by the king can be found in Bodl., Carte MSS 41–3 passim.

10 ‘The king to the lords justices for the officers who served in Ireland before 5 June 1649’, 14 Mar. 1661 (P.R.O., S.P. dom., Signet Office, iv, 383–6). The exceptions were Viscount Moore of Drogheda, Colonel Marcus Trevor, Sir Arthur Forbes and Sir PatrickWeymes. It appears that the king held these four in high regard, as he continued to shower rewards on them throughout the period; for example, Trevor was also awarded the titles of Viscount Dungannon and Baron Trevor of Rostrevor (B.L., Add. MS 31225).

11 Commons’ jn. Ire., i (1796), p. 394. Another committee was also set up to consider ‘expedients for the protection of the ‘49 Officers’ (ibid., p. 614). The Irish parliament also sent representatives to England, where the Bill of Settlement was being considered. The specific instructions given to these agents were that the ‘49 Officers should be ‘entirely protected and secured’ (ibid., pp 755–6).

12 Carte, Ormonde, iv, 61–2.

13 Lords’ jn. Ire., i, 269; see also pp 270–71 for the instructions given to this committee, and pp 287–8 for the king’s favourable answer to them. A synopsis of the proceedings of this committee can be seen in a letter from the commissioners of the Irish House of Commons to John Bramhall, archbishop of Armagh, 10 Sept. 1661 ( Report on the manuscripts of the late Reginald Rawdon Hastings [ed. Harley, John and L. Bickley, Francis] (4 vols, H.M.C., London, 1928-47), iv, 109–10).Google Scholar

14 This transformation occurred in March 1662, one day after the original commission for the ‘49 Trustees was reappointed (‘Appointment by Ormonde in conjunction with George Monck, duke of Albemarle, of trustees for arrears of pay due to the commissioned officers who served the king or his father in the wars of Ireland before 5 June 1649’, 27 Mar. 1662 (Ormonde MSS, i, 239)).

15 N.L.I., MS 816. This manuscript is hereafter referred to as the Court of Claims commissioners’ warrant book.

16 Ibid., f. 9. Arthur Annesley was created earl of Anglesey in 1661 for his efforts in helping to bring about the restoration of Charles II. He is here acting in his capacity as vice-treasurer and receiver general of Ireland.

17 These were: Sir William Flower, Sir Thomas Armstrong, Sir John Stevens, Sir Hans Hamilton, Col. Randal Clayton, Col. Alexander Piggot, Capt. Richard Gething and Major Robert Warde.

18 Court of Claims commissioners’ warrant book (N.L.I., MS 816, ff 9-15).

19 Ibid., f. 20.

20 ‘A rent roll of the forfeited houses, lands and tenements assigned towards satisfaction of the arrears of the commissioned officers who served in Ireland before 5 June 1649, set for one year determining the 25 March 1662, reserved thereon’ (Bodl., Rawl. B. 508; microfilm copy, N.L.I., pos. 3039).

21 Ibid., f. 53. The additional rent rolls alluded to by Brodrick cannot be traced by this writer.

22 Petition of the Ardee Protestants to the king, Aug. 1664 (Rec. comm. Ire. rep., 1821-5, p. 696).

23 ‘Petition of William Armitage [and 29 others] … soldiers whose lots fell in Ardee town, stating that they had laid out much money in improving the town, and that afterwards it was taken from them by a clause in the Act of Settlement’, 15 Oct. 1664 (ibid., p. 659). This assumption is based on the fact that the ‘49 Officers had no involvement in or received rents from the corporation of Ardee. I adduced this fact from the Ardee Corporation minute books. These are known locally as the Ruxton transcripts and date from 1661; the originals have recently been deposited in the Ardee branch of Louth County Library; abstracts from the years 1661–4 were published by Dolan, J. T. in Louth Arch. Soc. Jn., iii, no. 4 (1915), pp 357-62, iv, no. 1 (1916), pp 35–41.Google Scholar

24 For more on this point see O’Sullivan, Harold, ‘The plantation of the Cromwellian soldiers in the barony of Ardee, 1651-1656’ in Louth Arch. Soc.Jn., xxi, no. 4 (1988), pp 415-52.Google Scholar

25 ‘The humble answer of Christopher Bennet and Elias Best, sheriffs of the city of Dublin, to the petition of the honourable the trustees, appointed for managing the securities of the [‘49 Officers]’, May 1663 (King’s Inns, Dublin, Prendergast papers, viii, ff 818-21); see also Bodl., Carte MS 90, f. 178.

26 ‘Proclamation of the lord lieutenant and council’, 27 May 1663 (P.R.O., SP 63/309/109-16); see also Arnold, L. J., The Restoration land settlement in County Dublin, 1660-1688 (Dublin, 1993), pp 53–85 Google Scholar, which deals with claims and counter-claims; idem, ‘The Irish Court of Claims of 1663’ in I.H.S., xxiv, no. 96 (Nov. 1985), pp 417–39.

27 Arnold, ‘Irish Court of Claims’, p. 419; see also ‘An abstract of the Court of Claims for the trial of innocents’ in P.R.I. rep. D.K. 19, app. 5, pp 35–87.

28 ‘Judgement by the commissioners of settlement in Ireland’, 28 Jan. 1663 (P.R.O., SP 63/313/29).

29 See ‘Transcript of the first decree on roll number 1 of the decrees of innocents’, 20 Mar. 1666 (Rec. comm. Ire. rep., 1821–5, pp 523–615). In this instance Domville unsuccessfully defended the ‘49 Security against Richard Brice, a Dublin merchant. This particular source is a record of the entire legal proceedings relating to this case.

30 To ascertain the actual extent of this reduction would require a detailed study of the ‘Submissions and evidence: Court of Claims, 1663’ (Armagh Public Library, Armagh MS F.18; microfilm copy, National Archives of Ireland (henceforth N.A.I.), MS 3538).

31 ‘Reasons by the ‘49 Officers against losing any part of their security’, n.d. (Rec. comm. Ire. rep., 1821–5, pp 651–2).

32 Proclamation by the lord lieutenant and council, 27 May 1663 (P.R.O., SP 63/309/109-16). The particular difficulties experienced by Clayton can be seen in his personal correspondence on the claims of the ‘49 Officers (N.L.I., microfilm, pos. 29).

33 ‘Papers relating to the ‘49 Officers’ (N.A.I., MSS 2458-60). This particular collection deals primarily with the 1670s and 1680s; it consists of a large unsorted bundle of letters and papers.

34 The question posed by Ormond became the title of this particular document: ‘Whether such commissioned officers as submitted, not on having submitted to the cessation and afterwards fell off, are to be satisfied any arrears out of the ‘49 Security for the time they did not submit to the said cessation, having received no lands or money since 1649’, 14 June 1675 (N.A.I., ‘Papers relating to the ‘49 Officers’, MS 2458/15).

35 See Kenny, Kevin Mc, ‘A seventeenth-century “real estate company”: the 1649 Officers and the Irish land settlements, 1641-1681’ (unpublished M.A. thesis, St Patrick’s College, Maynooth, 1989), esp. pp 149-50, where all these points are developed further.Google Scholar

36 Court of Claims commissioners’ warrant book (N.L.I., MS 816, ff 39-40).

37 Trustees of the ‘49 Officers to Ormond, 22 Aug. 1665 (Bodl., Carte MS 35, f. 317). The agents of the ‘49 Officers brought with them a large amount of money (taken from the contingent sum) for the purpose of buying favours (king to Anglesey, 28 Jan. 1666 (Court of Claims commissioners’ warrant book, N.L.I., MS 816, f. 21)). This was not the first time that the ‘49 Officers entertained bribery to achieve their ends, as they had used this method extensively throughout the initial settlement proceedings (‘Warrant, under the sign manual to the trustees for the ‘49 Officers’, 13 Jan 1665 (P.R.O., SP 63/318/80-81)).

38 Orrery to Ormond, 30 May 1664 (A collection of the state letters of the earl of Orrery, ed. Morrice, Thomas (2 vols, Dublin, 1743), i, 188).Google Scholar

39 Carte, Ormonde, iv, 204–7.

40 Irish statutes revised, pp 189, 201–6, 208–10, 229–31, 235, 238–40, 260, 270–71, 276–7, 285–6. See also Mc Kenny ‘A seventeenth-century “real estate company” ‘, esp. app. E, pp 276–94, where these instructions are laid out and analysed in full. A total of seventeen clauses dealt with the ‘49 Officers.

41 Order by the Commissioners of Settlement, 25 June 1666 (P.R.O., SP 63/309/187).

42 To ascertain the names of those that had been postponed, it would be necessary to deduct the names that appeared in the 100 patents from the ‘Index Nominum to the enrolments of adjudications in favour of the [1649] Officers, preserved in the office of the chief remembrancer of the exchequer, Dublin’ (Rec. comm. Ire. rep., 1821–5, pp 616–37). This latter list, numbering 5,752, included Catholics, Protestant royalists who were already provided for, and those who could not pass Ormond’s legal scrutiny (mentioned above).

43 Orrery to Ormond, [May 1662] (Orrery state letters, i, 112–21).

44 Order book [of the Commissioners of Settlement and Explanation] (N.L.I., MS 31, ff 4-7). (This volume is catalogued in the N.L.I, as ‘Order book’, which is all that appears on the cover of the manuscript. From its contents, however, it is quite obvious that the manuscript is a daily account of the cases heard and judgements passed in the second Court of Claims.)

45 Ibid., f. 30.

46 The method I used to identify these 1,030 officers has been described in note 42. For an exact elaboration see Mc Kenny, ‘A seventeenth-century “real estate company” ‘, esp. app. A, pp 203–32, which shows an alphabetical compilation of the persons involved in the ‘49 lots, the army rank they held, the amount of arrears they claimed, and the number of the lot where they received their satisfaction.

47 For the process used to identify these lots see ibid., app. B, pp 233–8.

48 Court of Claims commissioners’ warrant book (N.L.I., MS 816, ff 27-31).

49 Lords Orrery and Roscommon had a special proviso included in the Act of Explanation which granted them the forfeited houses in Limerick. This was disputed by the ‘49 Officers, and the matter appears to have been resolved when Orrery and Roscommon agreed to pay £16,000 into the ‘49 Security: see Shaen to Orrery, 29 Feb. 1668 (Orrery papers, pp 53–4; ‘Particular savings contained in the patents’ (Rec. comm. Ire. rep., 1821–5, p. 301).

50 Petition of ‘49 Officers to Ormond, 15 June 1669 (Bodl., Carte MS 37, f. 44).

51 ‘Humble petition of the trustees appointed to manage the securities of the ‘49 Officers’, Oct. 1674 (Letters written by his excellency Arthur Capel, earl of Essex (London, 1770), pp 302–6); see also Bodl., Carte MS 38, f. 19, where the same letter appears with the addition to the title ‘Patentees on behalf of themselves and the rest of the commissioned officers of the 100 lots’.

52 Essex to Arlington, 5 Sept. 1674 (N.A.I., ‘Papers relating to the ‘49 Officers’, MS 2458).

53 King to ‘49 Officers, 19 July 1675 (ibid.).

54 Howard, G. E., Treatise of the exchequer and revenue of Ireland (2 vols, Dublin, 1774), i, 199.Google Scholar

55 Hutton, Ronald, Charles II, king of England, Scotland and Ireland (Oxford, 1989), p. 137 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. While some of Hutton’s inferences regarding Ireland must be regarded as suspect, his study still remains one of the better ones dealing with the political scene in Restoration Ireland.

56 Instruction to Robartes, 25 July 1660 (P.R.O., SP 63/303/82); king to chief justices, July 1660 (ibid., SP 63/303/83).

57 Bottigheimer, K. S., English money and Irish land: the ‘adventurers’ in the Cromwellian settlement of Ireland (Oxford, 1971), ch. 1Google Scholar; idem, ‘The Restoration land settlement’; idem, ‘Kingdom and colony: Ireland in the Westward Enterprise, 1536–1660’ in K. R. Andrews et al. (eds), The Westward Enterprise: English activities in Ireland, the Atlantic and America, 1480–1650 (Liverpool, 1978), pp 45–64; Barnard, T. C., ‘Planters and policies in Cromwellian Ireland’ in Past, & Present, no. 61 (1973), pp 39–83.Google Scholar

58 This paper has been long in gestation and has undergone many revisions. I would like to thank my mentor, Professor Karl Bottigheimer, who offered a searching criticism of the text which made it possible for me to state my case with greater clarity and confidence.