Our systems are now restored following recent technical disruption, and we’re working hard to catch up on publishing. We apologise for the inconvenience caused. Find out more: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 July 2016
The modification of the Cromwellian land settlement in Ireland which followed the restoration of the Stuart monarchy in 1660 was regulated by two acts of parliament, one familiarly known as the act of settlement of 1662, the other as the act of explanation of 1665. They became the principal legal instruments upon which land ownership in the country was to rest for two centuries.
The act of settlement was the statutory version, with the major addition of a preamble, of the so-called ‘Gracious declaration’ of 30 November 1660, a royal proclamation which enunciated the broad principles upon which the settlement was to be based. In its statutory form these principles were: the vesting in the king, as trustee for the purposes of the act, of all land confiscated since 23 October 1641 as a consequence of the rebellion, with the general exception of the land held on that date by the church and Trinity College, Dublin; the general confirmation to the adventurers and Cromwellian soldiers of the land they held on 7 May 1659; and the restoration of various classes of dispossessed proprietors, chiefly those catholics who could prove, before the commissioners appointed to execute the terms of the act, that they were innocent of having participated in the rebellion. Those found innocent were to be restored to their estates immediately without having to wait until the Cromwellian planters had first been ‘reprised’ (i.e. compensated) with land of equal value.
1. His majesties gracious declaration for the settlement of his kingdom of Ireland … (London, 1660). A commission to execute the terms of the declaration, which first met on 20 March 1661, proved abortive because it lacked statutory authority (J. P Prendergast, Ireland from the restoration to the revolution, 1660 to 1690 (London, 1887), p. 16). To invest it with such authority was the primary reason that Charles was persuaded to call an Irish parliament, which first assembled on 8 May 1661
2. 27 May 1659 marks the date on which the Rump of the Long Parliament reassembled (Steele, Tudor & Stuart proclam., i, no. 3108 (England and Wales)).
3 14 & 15 Chas. II, c. 2, Preamble, ss 1, 3-5, Declaration, ss 6-7, 9-10, 25-7, 225.
4. instructions, s. 11.
5 The other six were Henry Coventry, Edward Cooke, Sir Edward Dering, Sir Thomas Beverly, Sir Edward Smith, and Sir Richard Rainsford. Coventry was recalled in February and replaced, in April, by Sir Alan Broderick.
6 Cal. S.P. Ire., 1663-5, p. 107
7. P.R.I. rep. D.K. 19 app. v, p. 39; King’s Inns, Dublin, Prendergast MSS, v, f. 457; Calendar of Clarendon state papers, v, ed. F.J. Routledge (Oxford, 1970), pp 256, 260. Twenty-one court attorneys were appointed in October 1662 (Steele, Tudor & Stuart proclam., ii, no. 690 (Ireland)).
8 The number 829 is based on a tabulation of the figures which appear in P.R.I, rep. Q.K. 19, app. v. p. 41 The total entered for May should read 74. Some names appear more than once in the body of the abstract; others whose claims were heard do not appear at all, including several who were declared nocent. The abstract was probably transcribed from N.L.I., MS 19080, for the provenance of which see P.R.I, rep. D.K. 19, app. v, p. 39.
9 Bodl., Carte MS 67, f. 31
10 Ibid., f. 13v
11 P.R.O.L, MS 3538; Armagh Public Library, Submissions & evidence, court of claims, 1663, f. 18; P.R.I. rep. D.K. 19. app. v, p. 45 (66).
12 Howard, Gorges, A treatise on the exchequer and revenue of Ireland (2 vols, Dublin, 1776), ii, 149, 152Google Scholar; N.L.I. Joly MS 6, William Betham, ‘An historical account of the acts of settlement and explanation’, p. 94. Betham extracted entire passages from Howard.
13 Mercurius Hibernicus, no. 14 (14 Apr 1663). p. 113; Rec. comm. Ire. rep. 1821-5. iii. 525.
14 State of the papist ami protestant proprieties in the kingdom of Ireland (London, 1689), pp 31-2; Howard, Treatise, ii. 150, 165-6.
15 Delahide to Ormond, 7 Dec. 1663 (Bodl., Carte MS 159. f. 143).
16 Submissions & evidence, f. 64. Bodl., Carte MS 67, f. 14, P.R.I, rep. D.K. 19. app. v, pp 49 (135), 77 (707).
17 Mercurius Hibernicus, no. 2 (22 Jan. 1662/3), p. 10; no. 5 (10 Feb. 1662/3), p. 33.
18 Submissions & evidence, ff 24, 31, 101; Butler, W.F T., Confiscation in Irish history (Dublin, 1917), p. 185.Google Scholar
19 Declaration, s. 28.
20 Bodl., Carte MS 67 f. 14v The commissioners said later that they had time to restore only about one sixth of the innocent transplanters (Rec. cornm. Ire. rep., 1821-5, iii, 653).
21 Submissions & evidence, f. 44; P.R.I, rep. D.K. 19. app. v, p. 48 (111); King’s Inns, Dublin, Prendergast MSS, v, f. 353.
22 Kent County Archives Office, Dering papers, MS U35O, f. 11; Submissions & evidence, ff 215-16; Bodl.. Carte MS 67. ff 14-14v
23 Mercurius Hibernicus, no. 3 (27 Jan. 1662/3). p. 18.
24 Submissions & evidence, ff 240, 427
25 Ibid., ff 85-8, 132; P.R.I, rep D.K. 19, app. v, pp 49 (152), 52 (218).
26 Mercurius Hibernicus, no. 11 (28 Mar 1663), p. 83; no. 12 (4 Apr 1663), p. 92; Mercurius Publicus, no. 15 (28 Mar 1663), pp 239-40; no. 18 (4 Apr 1663), p. 277; J.P Prendergast, The Cromwellian settlement of Ireland (3rd ed., Dublin, 1922), pp 156-8; Instructions, s. 46.
27 Mercurius Hibernicus, no. 10 (23 Mar 1662/3), p. 73.
28 Cal. S.P Ire., 1663-5, p. 154.
29 Ibid., pp 48, 50, 56-7.
30 Ibid., p. 231; Russell, C.W and Prendergast, J.P. The Carte manuscripts in the Bixileian library: a report (London, 1871), p. 152 Google Scholar; The historical works of the right rev. Nicholas French (Dublin, 1846), i, 90 Google Scholar.
31 Submissions & evidence, ff 16, 18, 292-8.
32 Instructions, s. 85; Steele, Tudor & Stuart proclam. ii. no. 689 (Ireland).
33 Bagwell, Stuarts, iii, 334-5
34 Cal. S.P. Ire.. 1663-5. pp 96, 158.
35 Lane to Bennett, 8 July 1663 (ibid., p. 163).
36 Bodl., Clarendon MS 80, f. 314.
37 Bodl., Carte MS 67, f. 31; Lane to Bennett, 12 Aug. 1663 (Cal. S.P Ire , 1663-5, p. 199); P.R.I. rep. O.K. 19, app. v. p. 83 (801).
38 Routledge, Cal. Clarendon state papers, v, 327, 340; Cal. S.P Ire., 1663-5, pp 230, 253-4, 315.
39 Submissions & evidence, f. 11
40 P.R.I. rep. D.K. 19, app. v, p. 45 (62); N.L.I., MS 8033/1
4l Ormond to Clarendon; same to Bennett, 8 Apr. 1663 (Bodl.. Carte MS 143, f. 117: 46, ff 45-6).
42 P.R.l. rep. D.K. 19, app. v p. 49 (151). For Eustaces grant, see Cal. treas. bks, 1681-5, vii, pt 2, p. 738. Major Henry Jones should not be confused with the regicide of the same name, nor with Dr Henry Jones, bishop of Meath and a brother of Sir Theophilus Jones and Colonel Michael Jones.
43 Bodl.; Carte MS 44, ff 622-3.
44 Bodl., Carte MS 32, f. 407.
45 Cal. S.P. Ire., 1663-5, p. 99; H.M.C. rep. 8, app. i, pp 512a, 541b.
46 Bodl., Carte MS 32, ff 579. 736; P.R.I, rep. D.K. 19. app. v. p. 70 (593).
47 H.M.C., Ormonde MSS, n.s., iii, 62.
48 14 & 15 Chas II, c. 12.
49 17 & 18 Chas II, c. 2, s. 188. My treatment of this subject has been based largely on the late J.G. Simms s introduction, which he kindly allowed me to consult, to the forthcoming publication by the I.M.C. of the calendared version of the Submissions & evidence, court of claims, 1663.
50 Most contemporaries put the number of unheard claims, including Connacht transplanters, at 7-8000. See, e.g., Lansdowne, Petty-Southwell correspondence, 1676-87 (London, 1928), p. 152; Cal. S.P Ire., 1663-5, p. 503; Historical works of Nicholas French, i, 90; [Hugh Reily], Ireland’s case briefly stated (n.p., 1695), p. 104.
51 Rules, orders, and directions . for the execution of the act for the settlement of Ireland .. (Dublin. 1662)
52 Ibid.. p. 3.
53 Ibid . p. 5. rule 5.
54 The abstract of the claims of all persons claiming as innocents in the citx, county of the citw and county of Dublin (Dublin. 1663). The names of the claimants — about 250 — arc entered alphabetically It is worth noting (p. 1) that the commissioners originally intended to start the hearings on 10 Feb. 1663 I am grateful to Professor Karl Bot-tighcimcr for drawing my attention to this unique document, a copy of which is in B.L., press mark B. o 1
55 Ibid. pp 1922
56 Cornrnons’ jn. Ire. i, 636
57 Ibid., pp 625-6.
58 Ibid., pp 632, 634-5, 636-7
59 The Intellegencer, no. 4 (21 Sept. 1667), p. 27.
60 Bodl.. Carte MS 67 ff 38, 42.
61 Kings Inns. Dublin, Prendergast MSS, v ff 447-8.
62 Ibid., f. 455.
63 Bodl.. Cane MS 44, f. 263.
