conditions and incidents of English tenure. He also granted them on like tenure some of the lands which had previously belonged to the monasteries which he had suppressed.

However, he was averse to any attempt to colonise the country. If a powerful Celtic chief or Anglo-Irish proprietor, by rebellion or otherwise, incurred the penalty of forfeiture, he got rid of the delinquent, and generally appointed a kinsman as substitute; the subordinate inhabitants were not cleared out, and there was no attempt to bring in English or Scotch colonists to replace them. His daughters and James I. had no such objection, and the cruel system of colonising Ireland was practised by them to a great extent.

In the reign of Queen Mary, Leix and Offaley were distributed to English settlers, who were very active in exterminating the O'Mores and O'Conors.

Rebellions or quasi-rebellions in the reigns of Queen Elizabeth and James I. brought on huge confiscations. English and Scotch settlers were systematically planted on the forfeited lands, and a determined attempt was made to root out the Celtic and Anglo-Irish proprietors and inhabitants. Nearly all Ulster was planted in this manner, and immense tracts in Munster and Leinster likewise.

At the same time pressure was brought to bear on such Celtic chiefs or Anglo-Irish proprietors as did not incur the penalty of forfeiture to surrender the tribe lands to the Crown, and receive them back subject to the incidents and conditions of English tenure. In order to limit the power of the grantees, and establish independent freeholders, very substantial reservations were made in these grants.

When Charles I. began to reign, English tenure had been everywhere substituted for tanistry, and English laws for the Brehon laws. Many English and Scotch settlers, mainly of the Protestant religion, owned and occupied immense tracts of land previously owned by Celtic and Anglo-Irish chiefs and inhabitants.

The Celtic chiefs who had become feudal tenants were divested of most of their former power. Previously the chief had uncontrolled power within his borders, appointed his own officers, and received the most devoted service from them and his tribesmen. Venerated by the entire clan, nobody questioned his will, authority, or acts, and everybody ministered to his pleasure.

When he ceased to be a chief, and became a feudal tenant, the tribal system was broken up, English laws were administered in his district by officers over whom he had no authority, and he was as liable to prosecution for breach of these laws as the meanest man in the locality. Freeholders, practically independent, were set up around him; over a great portion of the tribe lands he was merely a rent-charger; he was liable to taxes, feudal impositions, and legal duties previously unknown, and his influence was sadly diminished. Naturally, he was full of regrets.

Early in the reign of Charles I. the Catholics, by advice of the Viceroy, made an offer of £120,000 to the king for certain concessions known as the "graces." They referred to security of title in land, free trade, and the substitution of the oath of allegiance for that of supremacy. The king granted them by proclamation, and they understood the Irish Parliament would confirm them, and make them valid. This was not done. They were similarly duped by Strafford.

Strafford's arbitrary measures to raise money, and his bold attempts to quash the titles of the vast number of landed proprietors in order to legally rob them, spread dismay and discontent in all directions. His attempts to "settle" titles were rightly looked on as dishonest methods of extracting money from the grantees, and imposing higher rents. The landed proprietors, whether Celt, Anglo-Irish, or Colonist, Catholic, Protestant, or Presbyterian, all became uneasy and discontented, and were apprehensive of the future. Religious disabilities were a further source of extreme annoyance to the Catholics and Presbyterians.

This hundred years had been a bad time for the Celts. Many of them had gone down in the struggle, and those who emerged best from the turmoil and disasters had come off badly. Their ancestors had an existence perfectly congenial. Their chiefs, like the heads of the clans in Scotland, were petty kings, whose followers served them with a love the most powerful English noble could never command. Their occupations were mainly connected with war or the chase; rude plenty flowed in from the clansmen, and bards and shanachies ministered to their amusement and pride.

A few of the descendants of those powerful chiefs succeeded in retaining the tribe lands; others possessed only a fraction of them, while the great number, through forfeiture or neglect, had completely lost them. O'Neill, O'Donnell, and scores of others were gone, and the colonists filled their places.

A like fate had fallen on the Anglo-Irish, who had been more Irish than the Irish themselves. Desmond, Eustace, and kindred nobles and gentlemen had found an unhappy destiny.

Furthermore, both Celt and Anglo-Irish had found the executive very irritating, the new social system extremely distasteful; and, to make matters worse, King James and King Charles I. allowed the Irish to take service with the continental powers, especially Spain, and licences were issued to recruit large bodies of men for foreign service.

Several members of the best families emigrated in this way, displayed military talent, and rose to eminence. Many returned home that were trained soldiers, and, naturally hostile to the existing system, were a source of grave danger in any popular movement.

Rory O'More, whose warlike ancestors had long bravely struggled to hold their territory of Leix, first conceived the idea of a rebellion. He was much impressed by the terms the Scots had obtained from

Charles I. English and Scotch politics foreshadowed a period of trouble, during which Ireland would have to shift for herself without aid or interference from the predominant partner.

The Irish Government was extremely weak and unpopular, and the army of 8000 foot and 1000 horse collected at Carrickfergus, on their way to aid the king's troops in crushing the Covenanters, were to be disbanded.

O'More's affairs were in a desperate condition, and he thought that the weakness of the king and the Irish Government should be turned to account. On every side he saw the descendants of powerful chiefs and captains possessing fragments only of the lands owned by their ancestors, while British undertakers and servitors enjoyed the vast bulk of the remainder. Nearly all Ulster had been planted, and there were plantations on a smaller scale in Cork, Kerry, Leitrim, Limerick, Longford, Wexford, Wicklow, &c. The undertakers had been several years in lawful possession, and nothing but a revolution could dislodge them.

Many were drawn to his views by the hopes of recovering their ancient estates and grandeur; several were inflamed by the idea that their religion was to be extirpated by Scotch Covenanters and English Puritans.

He held out substantial hopes of success. The king and Irish Government were both weak. A great portion of the army to be disbanded would join them and instruct them. A great number of Irishmen, or men of Irish descent, who had acquired great military experience in the service of Spain and France, would flock to their standard; he had been in correspondence with the Earl of Tyrone and others, and had every assurance of men and arms from abroad. Cardinal Richelieu would aid any considerable movement.

The old Irish Catholics in Ulster were first approached with the greatest secrecy. A vast number was drawn into a conspiracy, which culminated in a revolt on the 23rd October, 1641, and within a week all Ulster, except a few fortresses, was in the hands of the insurgents.

The army had been disbanded during the summer, and the country was full of the disbanded soldiers.1 In the previous May it was resolved to pay off this army, disband it, putting eight several captains each over 1000 men, and licence their departure for foreign parts, so that Ireland would be relieved of them. Subsequently the Irish Parliament put obstacles in the way. Eight officers petitioned the king that orders should be sent to the Council and Parliament directing that the men should be allowed to embark. The king was anxious to grant their petition, and actually sent directions to the Lords Justices to instruct

1 The "Calendars of State Papers," Ireland, Addenda, 1625-1660, p. 228, and for the years 1633-1647, pp. 210, 281, 330, 331, 350, 357, give full information concerning the disbanded soldiers.

the officers of the Irish ports to permit 4000 men to be exported. Nothing came of it, and many of them joined the insurgents.

The next defection was the Lords of the Pale. There was the greatest antipathy between them and the Ulster Irish. Their ancestors had been bitterly opposed in wars and depredations from the time of the Conquest to the Plantation of Ulster, and the animosity so begotten still survived. The Lords Justices ought to have profited by this well-known feeling, but by a strange perversity they drove the Lords of the Pale to unite with the Ulster insurgents.

The Lords Justices were animated by the most extreme puritanical principles, and had no sympathy with the Lords of the Pale. On the outbreak of the rebellion several of the chief families offered their services, but the Lords Justices did not accept them. This put a stop to similar offers, and the men who came to Dublin to risk their lives for the State were actually ordered by proclamation to return home as soon as the Lords Justices had assurance of substantial support from the English House of Commons.

This forced them to return to districts adjoining the localities where the rebellion raged, and they were thus obliged to have perpetual intercourse with the rebels, to support them by contributions, and sometimes to unite with them, to avert cruelty.

Their position was very critical; circumstances altogether unavoidable had made them liable to a charge of high treason. They knew the Lords Justices heartily disliked them; the proclamation excluding them from Dublin had deprived them of refuge, and driven them into association with the rebels, their persons and possessions being defenceless.

At the beginning of December strange rumours were industriously circulated throughout the kingdom. The violent proceedings of the English Parliament caused the Roman Catholics generally to apprehend the design of extirpating them, and the action of the Lords Justices confirmed this view; the wealthy and powerful had reason to fear that their estates would be forfeited and planted with English adventurers.

The forces of the Lords Justices were defeated at Gillianstown Bridge, near Júlianstown, on the 29th November; and in a few days the forces of the rebels between Drogheda and Dublin amounted to 20,000 men. The Lords Justices were alarmed, as no aid had yet arrived from England, and on the 3rd December they summoned the gentlemen of the Pale to Dublin to confer with them. The latter, fearing that a trap was laid for them, refused to attend, and after some fruitless correspondence openly united with the rebels in the course of the month.

They did not join the standard of the Ulster rebels, but remained under the guidance of Lord Gormanstown. They professed to take arms only in self-defence, and solicited a speedy accommodation. By their declaration of loyalty, and zeal for the redress of grievances, they made a