Confiscation in Irish history/Chapter 2

by William Francis Thomas Butler

CHAPTER II

THE PLANTATION OF ULSTER

With the death of Elizabeth, and the accession of the Stuarts, a new era opens in Ireland. To conquest by force of arms and accompanying confiscation succeeds confiscation based on legal subtleties.

At first matters seemed to go smoothly under James I. Earl Hugh O'Neill, who had submitted a few days after Elizabeth's death, was pardoned and restored to all his lands. Rory O'Donnell, brother and successor of Red Hugh, received an earldom together with a grant of all Tirconnell.^[1]

In general all the Irish who had survived the rebellion were pardoned, and so secured in all their rights to land, whatever those might be. All the inhabitants of Ireland were admitted to the protection of the law, and made "denizens," thus sweeping away the old legal distinction between those of Irish and of English blood. Serfdom was abolished by a proclamation of the Deputy, Chichester, in March, 1605.^[2] A commission for^[3] the remedying of defective titles was set up, whose function it was to put an end to the confusion as to titles to land arising from the troubles of former years; and by its labours, as well as by direct grants from the Crown, a very large number of landowners of both races received titles to their estates which actually were, or which, at any rate, were supposed to be valid in law. The Deputy, with Sir John Davies and other dignitaries, undertook a journey in 1606 through Monaghan, Fermanagh, and Cavan to satisfy himself as to the actual rights to land of the chiefs and clansmen respectively in these districts.^[4]

All this peaceful progress was put an end to by the "Flight of the Earls." Into the causes of this, perhaps one of the most fatal incidents in Irish history, we need not enter. Its immediate consequence, however, was a confiscation sweeping in character and far-reaching in its results. Probably no event has had such an influence in shaping the subsequent history of Ireland, and incidentally of England too, yet the accounts given in our current histories are as a rule inadequate if not actually misleading. For instance, we find school histories stating that the confiscation of Ulster was a penalty for the rising of O'Neill and O'Donnell under Elizabeth, and others holding that the Flight of the Earls vested in the Crown the whole of the six "Plantation Counties."^[5] Others again give most misleading accounts of the extent of the confiscation. All these points deserve attention.^[6]

First, as to the actual state of affairs in Ulster at the moment of the Flight of the Earls. By law the present counties of Derry, Donegal, Tyrone, and Armagh were, except for the Church lands, practically owned in fee simple by five individuals, viz., the earls of Tirconnell and Tyrone, O'Dogherty, O'Hanlon, and O'Neill of the Fews.^[7] In these four counties then. Royal grants together with the greed of the chiefs had combined to deprive the clansmen of all legal titles to land. Rory O'Donnell had no sooner obtained a grant in general terms of Tirconnell than he induced all his subject chiefs to make surrenders to him, and to acknowledge him as owner in fee of the whole county. Even Mac Swiney na Doe, who, as a reward for his desertion of the Irish side during the rebellion, had got a grant of all the lands of his clan from Elizabeth, was induced to surrender this grant to O'Donnell.^[8]

Earl Hugh O'Neill, on the ground of the loose wording of the original grant to Con, claimed all Tyrone and Derry, with much of Armagh. The claim was preposterous, and directly contrary to the interpretation put on the precisely similar grants to the Earls of Thomond and Clanricarde; it was strongly resisted by O'Cahane, lord of Derry; it was equally emphatically condemned by Sir John Davies, who had been ordered to report on the matter; but the question was still undecided at the date of the Flight of the Earls.^[9] O'Dogherty and O'Hanlon had both received grants from Elizabeth, which had distinctly dispossessed the clansmen of all their rights.^[10]

On the other hand the Deputy and his commission had but recently decided that in Cavan and Fermanagh the chiefs had had no rights under Elizabethan grants except to the lands and other privileges attached to the lordship, and that by far the greater part of these counties was the property, not of the chiefs, but of the clansmen.

O'Dogherty's rebellion gave the Crown a further chance to remove all native claimants to lands in Donegal, Derry, and Armagh. O'Cahane and Sir Neal Garve O'Donnell were imprisoned on the charge of complicity with O'Dogherty, a charge never proved; and O'Hanlon, whose son had joined O'Dogherty, and had been attainted, was induced to surrender, in return for a pension, his life interest in his lands.^[11]

Thus, four counties stood at the disposal of the Crown. Now, immediately after the departure of the Earls the Deputy had declared to the inhabitants of these counties that they would be no losers by the attainder of the fugitives, and that every man was to be confirmed in his own. At this period no great plantation appears to have been contemplated; the demesne lands of the chiefs would have supplied room for a certain number of settlers, leaving those Irish who claimed freeholds undisturbed. And to convict the Earls of treason juries of natives were summoned whom the Crown for its own purposes found it convenient to consider as freeholders.^[12]

But, when after O'Dogherty's rising the idea of a great plantation took shape, this promise of the Deputy's was ignored, and to override the just rights of the natives a most ingenious argument was brought forward. If, said the Crown lawyers, the mass of the inhabitants of the four counties were—as O'Donnell and O'Neill had asserted—mere tenants-at-will there was no more to be said: plainly they had no rights. But if on the other hand, as O'Cahane and many of the chief men of the O'Neills had contended, and as Sir John Davies had held, the grants from Elizabeth and James had only affected the demesne lands and chief rights, then the Act of Elizabeth attainting Shane O'Neill was brought into play. It had explicitly confiscated three out of the four counties. Hence all the lands of the freeholders had by it fallen to the Crown, and if they had never since been granted to anyone—as plainly they had not been—well then they were still in the Crown.

So whichever set of facts was true the clansmen had no rights good in law!

In particular the Act attainting Shane O'Neill was made use of to confiscate the Church lands in Armagh, Derry, and Tyrone. The greater part of these had been from time immemorial occupied by certain Irish septs, who paid a certain yearly rent to the Bishops, as well as fixed fines and subsidies on special occasions.^[13] Should one of these septs become extinct, the Bishop could not absorb the land into his demesne: he was bound to give it over on similar terms to certain other specified septs.

These facts after much controversy between the Crown and Montgomery, Bishop of Derry, Clogher, and Raphoe, were established to the satisfaction of the lawyers by findings of juries of clerks in each of the three counties. These findings can be read at pretty full length in the Calendars of State Papers,^[14] and in extenso in the Patent Rolls of James I.

The decision was that the Irish septs inhabiting the episcopal lands enjoyed the freehold; the Bishop or other ecclesiastic had only fixed rents and services. But the Act before mentioned had confiscated the lands of all freeholders. Hence the Irish septs had no rights as against the Crown, and the Church lands were duly swept into the net.^[15]

But, since Donegal, Fermanagh, and Cavan had not been included in the scope of the Act attainting Shane O'Neill, a different procedure was necessary in their case.

For Tirconnell the pretext was used that the King's patent had granted the whole country to the Earl, except those portions which had been specifically excepted; and that this grant included the lands of the erenachs "who had no estate by the laws of the realm, but held their lands according to the Irish custom."^[16] Similar arguments were used with regard to the Church lands in Fermanagh and Cavan. It is significant that in all three cases the abstracts of Crown title are very brief as compared with those in the case of Armagh and Tyrone. It seems as if Sir John Davies thought that the less said on the subject the better.

Had the confiscation stopped at the four counties to which the Crown had made title as shown above, it is possible that it would not have left behind it such a feeling of cruel injustice. But as the idea of a great plantation took shape, it was determined to include Cavan and Fermanagh in the forfeited area.

The rights of the chiefs in both counties had admittedly come to the Crown owing to the death in actual rebellion of Hugh Maguire and of three successive O'Reilly chiefs of Cavan.^[17] But only a few months before the Flight of the Earls the Deputy had decided that the real owners of these counties had been, not the chiefs, but the clansmen. An elaborate enquiry had been held in Fermanagh, as a result of which it was estimated that about 6,000 acres had come to the Crown by the forfeiture of Hugh, as well as about 2,000 more set apart for the poets, chroniclers, &c., which were to be handed over to the two claimants to the lordship "in respect of the persons that merit no respect but rather discountenance from the State." In addition it was found that only two freeholders had perished during the whole course of the rebellion; for the "natives of this county are reputed the worst swordsmen of the north, being rather inclined to be scholars or husbandmen than to be kern or men of action, as they term rebels in this kingdom." This, incidentally, throws an unexpected light on "barbarous" Celtic Ulster.

The result of the whole investigation had been that over two hundred natives had been declared to be entitled to freeholds, although the Commissioners had arbitrarily cut out all who showed right to a smaller quantity of land than two "taths."^[18]

By a mere accident the patents to these freeholders had never been made out. The same applied to Cavan, in which county Davies in 1606 had expressly admitted the existence of freeholders, although he has given us no details as to numbers.

Now, with absolute disregard to consistency or justice, all former findings and promises were ignored. On the pretext that the Irish customs of inheritance could not be reduced to agreement with the Common Law of England, the same Sir John Davies in 1610 declared that all the natives of these two counties were only tenants at will of the lords; and so, as the lords^ had been attainted, the whole of the two counties had fallen to the Crown.

Again, in 1610, we find the same Sir John Davies, who in 1606 had declared that not the chiefs but the clansmen were the owners, and who had laboured to persuade the natives of Cavan that their finding that O'Reilly had been seised of the whole country "in dominio suo ut de feodo et de jure" would not invalidate their claim to freeholds, now maintaining the exact opposite view, and quoting with approval the arguments with which the Crown lawyers had defeated the claims of the inhabitants.^[19]

The details of the actual colonisation of the six counties are so well known that it is unnecessary to mention them here. There is, however, one feature of special note in the scheme. Every effort was made to keep the colonists and the original inhabitants distinct. British "Undertakers" were not to have any Irish tenants whatsoever: all Irish residing on the lands set out to them—by far the largest share of the six counties—were to be removed.^[20]

The whole Irish population of the planted area was to be concentrated on the lands assigned to "servitors"^[21] and to "natives." By what seems to be a concession of a date later than the original plan the Bishops might have Irish tenants on the Erenagh and other lands finally adjudged to them, provided that at least one-third of such lands was planted with Britons.^[22]

In particular the lands granted to the Londoners in County Derry were to be cleared of the Irish population. Few Irish were to receive estates there, so that it was hoped that the territory might become an almost exclusively British settlement.^[23] In the original scheme certain Irishmen were to have got 8,000 acres in this county on the petition of the Lord Deputy; but only 6,000 acres were actually allotted to them.^[24]

Of course this attempt at segregation failed in the long run.^[25] The new landowners could not cultivate their demesne lands without Irish labour; Irish tenants offered higher rents than could be obtained from British; these last could not always be obtained. At first extensions were obtained of the time limit before which the Irish occupiers were to remove. Then the new owners, by a policy of passive resistance, succeeded ultimately, in spite of numerous efforts on the part of the government, in evading this, one of the fundamental conditions of their grants. Finally in 1626 permission was given to take Irish tenants on a quarter of the Undertakers' lands, provided that they were given leases for life, or for twenty-one years, and that provision was made to force such Irish tenants to abandon the mode of life and the religion of their forefathers.

And so we find to-day the curious result that the two counties of Ulster in which the Teutonic and Protestant element definitely predominates over the Irish and Catholic are Down and Antrim, areas in which, up to the time of Cromwell, there was scarcely any confiscation, and no attempt at colonisation on the part of the government.^[26]

The old Irish element persisted in the six plantation counties, intermingled with but distinct from the colonists. Religious distinctions kept the three races Irish, Scots, English apart.

Up to 1641 it is certain that the Irish element greatly outnumbered the two others combined. The total of Protestants in Ulster at that date is estimated by Carte at 120,000 and by Latimer at 100,000.

The war of extermination which followed on the rising of 1641 must have gone far to alter the balance of races.^[27] Yet in 1659 the Irish in all Ulster were to the combined English and Scots as 1½ to 1.^[28]

The years between the Restoration and the Revolution were marked by a large immigration from Scotland.^[29] The Scots however took little foothold in Cavan and Fermanagh. The emigration of Presbyterians to America in the eighteenth century must have seriously weakened the Scottish element, as that of the 19th century has weakened the Irish. Woodburn holds that 200,000 people left Ulster for America between 1700 and 1760. At the present day if we take religion as the distinctive test we should estimate the Irish element in the six counties at 60 per cent.

In reality, however, it is more. For, while few or none of the dominant race in the plantation counties are likely to have become Catholics, it is quite certain, as surnames show, that very many of the old Irish have in the course of centuries become Protestants.^[30]

There is much confusion as to the extent of land actually affected. The official estimate was that in round numbers half a million acres were confiscated, and that 58,000 of these were distributed among about 280 Irish.^[31] Now, since the true area of the six counties is 3,680,000 acres, writers such as Froude and O'Connor Morris have stated that only the best lands were taken, and that the remainder—largely wood and waste—was left to the Irish.^[32]

This theory seems, however, to have no foundation in fact. In the first place particular pains were taken to remove the Irish from the hills and woods, and to settle them in the open country where they would be less dangerous to the State, and where they might soon settle down to agriculture. Furthermore, in 1641 Protestants held over 3,000,000 acres and Catholics about 586,000 acres in the six counties.^[33] The truth seems to be that the whole of the six counties were confiscated; that O'Neill of the Fews, Conor Roe Maguire, and one or two O'Neills in Tyrone got large grants, and that about 280 other Irish proprietors had between one-eighth and one-ninth of the rest divided among them. And the surveyors when they speak of acres took into account only what they considered good land, wood, waste, and rough pasture being thrown in; so that to obtain a true estimate of what each man obtained we must multiply the acreage actually given by seven.^[34]

We must remember in estimating the effects of the Plantation of Ulster that some regard was paid to the rights of the Irish. Sir John Davies makes a point of this in his letter of 1610, contrasting the procedure of James not only with the precedent set by the Spaniards in their late expulsion of the Moriscoes, but also with that set by the Anglo-Normans at their first invasion. And it must be borne in mind that as regards the four counties directly affected by the Flight of the Earls there were many more Irish with a legal title to landed property in them after the Plantation than before it. Rightly or wrongly the Crown in these counties had granted the clan lands to the chiefs. These latter, it was hoped, would in turn grant estates to the chief men under them. In time they might have done so, but there is clear proof that up to 1607 they had neglected or rather refused to do so. Even Neal Garve O'Donnell, when complaining that the promises made to him had not been kept, declared "that he acknowledged no other kind of right or interest in any man else, yea the very persons of the people he challenged to be his.^[35] And at the time when O'Cahane seemed likely to obtain a decision in his favour against Hugh O'Neill, it was proposed that he should create freeholders under him, yet he had done nothing in the matter.

It is true that had the Earls been left undisturbed, they would probably have left all their subjects in enjoyment of whatever they were entitled to by Irish law, and would in time have granted to the chief among them estates held by English tenures. But in the course of a generation or two it is probable that greed would have been stronger than old custom.^[36] The Scotch chiefs in the Highlands, taking advantage of royal grants, reduced all their clansmen to the condition of tenants at will. The Mac Donnells of Antrim, the Mac Carthys of Muskerry and other Irish chiefs to whom grants of all the clan lands had been made seem to have followed the same course. There is no reason to suppose that O'Neill or O'Donnell would have been less grasping than Cameron of Lochiel, or the Mac Donalds of the Isles, or the Campbells of Argyll.

Yet, laying aside speculation as to what might have been, it is worth while to reflect on some of the consequences which flowed from the confiscation of Ulster. There was the misery of the expelled Irish, breeding a rancour made all the more bitter by the feeling that the King's word had been broken, and that the promises made in his name by his representatives had been ignored. From this bitterness came the rising of 1641 which in its turn brought with it more injustice giving rise to a train of evils the consequences of which have not yet worked themselves out.

And greatest sufferers by the results of the Plantation were the descendants of the King who was responsible for the scheme. When we read how the Duchess of Buckingham found O'Cahane's wife old and in rags crouching amid ruins over a scanty fire, there may rise before us at the same time the picture of James' daughter the "Winter Queen," a fugitive and a widow, begging her bread from half the courts of Europe, and of his daughter-in-law—daughter of France, widowed Queen of England—lying in her room in Paris unable to leave her bed, because she had neither clothes to wear nor fire at which to warm herself.

Their miseries, however, are only incidents in a great family tragedy, and in that tragedy a large if not a deciding part is played by Ulster. Had there been no rising in Ulster of the native Irish in 1641, or had there been no English and Scotch puritan settlers in Ulster to oppose the pacification of 1643, Charles I. would have had at his back an Ireland united in his support in his struggle with his revolted English subjects. The contest with them was a close one. Can we doubt that with one kingdom solidly united in his favour he would have been able to beat down his opponents? That the Plantation of Ulster cost the son of James I. his head is a proposition which can be maintained, that it cost James' grandson and namesake his Crown is a proposition which hardly admits of dispute.

Before the walls of Derry, and not at the Boyne or at Aughrim, was the question decided that the house of Stuart was to vanish from the ranks of ruling houses, to see finally, after some brilliant episodes, its cause buried in a drunkard's grave. Nor can the rulers who have succeeded to the Stuart heritage feel sure that the consequences of this far back injustice have been exhausted yet. And a worse confiscation was to follow.

1. Excluding Inishowen, which had been granted to O'Dogherty under Elizabeth: Fiant 5207; and also excluding certain lands to be given to satisfy the claims of Sir Neal Garve O'Donnell, and to supply certain English garrisons.
2. This is quoted in part on p. 394 of Bonn's Englische Kolonisation.
3. There were really two; one for strengthening of defective titles, the other for accepting surrenders from the Irish and "degenerate" English, and regranting estates under the Common Law.
4. "But touching the inferior gentlemen and inhabitants, it was not certainly known to the State here whether they were only tenants-at-will to the chief lords … or whether they were freeholders yielding of right to their chief lord certain rights and services, as many of them do allege." (Sir J. Davies: Letter to Salisbury, 1606). The Deputy decided in favour of the clansmen. 1606 seems the true date of the Letter and the journey, although they are dated 1607 in Morley's Ireland under Elizabeth and James I.
5. For instance the Rev. Kingsmill Moore in his Irish History for Young Readers implies that the six counties were the lands of the Earls.
6. Bright says "Three quarters of the worst land was restored to the Irish"; O'Connor Morris and Froude have substantially the same statement.
   The Spectator habitually includes Antrim and Down in the "Plantation Counties."
7. One or two of the O'Neills had been assigned estates independent of the Earl of Tyrone; and Neal Garve O'Donnell had been promised a large slice of Tyrconnell. It does not appear that he had received any patent for his lands. For the O'Neills see Calendar of State Papers, 1605, pp. 320 and following.
8. See Calendar of State Papers, 1605, p. 320, for an account of Rory O'Donnell's proceedings. He had induced the Mac Swineys, O'Boyles, and "other ancient gents inhabitants of Tyrconnell, to surrender their several estates in their lands."
9. Calendar of State Papers, 1605, pp. 320 and following for claims to freeholds in Tyrone by many gentlemen of the O'Neills and other septs. "They have ordered that those ancient gentlemen in Tyrone, and in all other parts of Ulster shall continue in their possessions until further consideration may be had of their estates."
10. For O'Hanlon see Fiants: Elizabeth, 5090.
11. O'Hanlon's son appears to have gone to Sweden. Calendar of State Papers, 1610, pp. 552—577.
    The Fews were also held to be in the Crown; for, when the grant to Sir Tirlough Mac Henry O'Neill was made, the previous grant to Chatterton had not yet been avoided.
12. Chichester's project for dealing with the forfeited lands was much more equitable than that finally adopted. He would have made ample provision for the native claimants of lands, and would have limited the plantation to the demesne lands of the chiefs, and to unoccupied lands.
13. See the inquisitions in Calendar of State Papers, and Sir John Davies, Letter to Salisbury in which he treats of Corbes and Erenachs.
14. See Calendar of State Papers, 1610, pp. 559 to 577.
15. These lands were ultimately regranted to the Bishops, with the proviso that they were to plant at least one-third with "Britons." See for Armagh Calendar of State Papers, 1610, p. 410.
16. No doubt there is a reference here to the decision of the judges against inheritance by Gavelkind.
17. Cuconnaght Maguire had got a grant from Elizabeth in general terms. (Fiants Elizabeth, 4809). He was to permit the free tenants in the country to enjoy their lands, they rendering the rents and services accustomed. Hugh was son and successor to Cuconnaght. After Hugh's death his brother Cuconnaght succeeded as Irish lord, but a rival. Conor Roe, got a patent of the whoie county as "Queen's Maguire." Then there was a plan for dividing the county, giving £140 a year chief rent to each claimant; seven others of the principal men were to have patents, and they were to be bound to make "such freeholds or leaseholds with such reservations as shall be thought fit." Cal. St. Paps., 1607, p. 385.
18. In Fermanagh there were seven "baronies" (probably Irish Cantreds) each of which had 7½ Ballybetaghs of chargeable lands, besides free lands, i.e., lands free from Maguire's rents and contributions. The Ballybetaghs had 16 Taths. In Monaghan the Tath or Tate had about 60 English acres, but Davies says that in Fermanagh the measure was far larger. He estimates Monaghan at 100 Ballybetaghs, containing in all 86,000 acres. The real area is:—Monaghan, 320,000 English acres; Fermanagh, 457,000 English acres. Each barony gave Maguire 42 cows.
19. See Davies: Letter to Salisbury, 1606, and to the same, 1610.
20. According to one list, of the 511,000 acres at which the six counties were estimated, about 163,000 were assigned to Undertakers and 61,400 to the Londoners. Servitors got about 50,000, and natives just over 52,000 acres. Corporate towns, Trinity College, the Church, schools, certain favoured Irish, and certain grants of abbey lands not included in the general scheme account for the remainder. It must be remembered in each case that to obtain the true area we must multiply by seven in each case.
21. "Servitors" were those who had served the Crown in Ireland.
22. Cal. St. Paps., 1610, p. 410.
23. In all documents dealing with plantations under James I. the term "British" is consistently used in contradistinction to "Irish." Scots, Welsh and English are of course all included under British. This is interesting in view of present day attempts to show that British includes Irish. The character given to these British settlers by one of their own clergy, the Rev. A. Steward, circa 1645—71, has often been quoted: "From Scotland came many, and from England not a few, yet all of them generally the scum of both nations,—who from debt, or breaking, or fleeing from justice, or seeking shelter, came hither, hoping to be without fear of man's justice in a land where there was nothing, or but little as yet, of the fear of God." Sir H. Maxwell's book The Tweed vastly also be consulted for the light it throws on the savagery of the Scottish borders at this period.
24. Cal. St. Paps., 1647—60, p. 204.
25. Even in Derry there were a few Irish landowners in 1641: in 1622 we read of 1,824 Irish tenants, among them 300 gentlemen, on the lands of the Londoners.
    Sir John Davies himself, that pillar of the law, had no British tenants on his Armagh lands at the time of Pynnar's survey.
26. Here the colonisation from Great Britain was the result of private enterprize. Belfast and a certain area round it was treated as forfeited or as ancient property of the Crown and granted to Chichester. Kilultagh was granted to Sir James Hamilton and ultimately to Sir Fulke Conway. But the remainder of the two counties, except abbey lands, was either regranted to the former chiefs, or was held by settlers of old English descent who were not disturbed, or was granted to the head of the MacDonnells, a Catholic Scottish clan who for two centuries past had been establishing themselves on the coast. Iveagh was divided up among some forty-four of the chief clansmen.
    More than one of the great Irish grantees soon parted with their lands to Britons. Particularly noteworthy is the case of Sir Con O'Neill of Upper Clandeboy, who by means set out at length in the Montgomery and Hamilton Manuscripts, was induced to make over two-thirds of his immense estates to two hungry Scotsmen, Sir Hugh Montgomery and Sir James Hamilton. The new landowners brought over large numbers of their countrymen. The country round Belfast had been nearly depopulated by the merciless warfare waged by Chichester, who as he himself tells us, slew all without any distinction of sex or rank whom he met with during his forays between 1600 and 1603 (see Cal. St. Paps., 1599—1603, p. 356). The new settlers soon acquired lands under the remaining Irish owners. Of 13,092 men whom the British in Ulster could put into the field in 1633, 5,663 were in Down and Antrim. (Bonn, quoting from Gilbert, Vol. I., p. 278).
27. One English regiment counted among its exploits during^ a very short period that in Fermanagh it had "starved and famished of the vulgar sort, whose goods were seized on by this regiment, 7000."
28. Petty's Census, as quoted by Hardinge. But it is hard to believe that the total population of Ulster at that date was only 104,000.
29. Also, according to Prendergast, there was a great immigration from Scotland between 1690 and 1698. He estimates it at 80,000 persons into different parts of Ireland, but chiefly into Ulster. (Ireland from the Restoration to the Revolution, p. 98).
    Petty thought 80,000 Scots had come in since the Restoration. Woodburn appears to disbelieve in these figures, and with reason.
    Archbishop Synge thought that 50,000 Scottish families had come in since the Revolution. This is hard to believe. The Hearth money returns give 62,624 Protestant families as against 38,459 Catholic families in 1732—33 (Bonn, Vol. II., p. 163). Antrim, Armagh, Derry, Donegal, Down and Fermanagh had then a Protestant majority. This one can hardly credit for Donegal and Fermanagh.
30. Many Ulster Protestants bear distinctively southern names. This is accounted for by the custom of the Charter Schools of sending the children of southern Catholics to schools in Ulster, so that their parents might not be able to prevent their being brought up as Protestants. (Irish Intermediate Education. Dublin, 1877. p. 148).
31. The numbers differ in the various lists. In 1641 about 270 Catholics held land in five of the six counties, there being no certain return for Armagh. Of these only five or six were in Derry.
32. There is a grant 10th of Jas. I. to Captain John Sanford of mountains, woods and bogs in the six plantation counties, except such as heretofore been granted by the King by Letters Patent.
33. These are Hardinge's figures; he gives the total area as 3,630,000 acres.
34. Conor Roe Maguire is said to have got the whole barony of Magherastephena estimated at about 7,000 acres. It really has over 61,000 English acres.
35. See Bagwell: Ireland under the Stuarts: but I cannot verify his reference.
36. Both O'Donnell and O'Neill had on persuasion of the Deputy and Council named such persons as they thought proper to be freeholders in 1605 (Calendar of State Papers, 1605, p. 320, and following). In the case of Tyrone these could only be named for the Earl's life, as his son was still under age. However, the Earls appear to have taken no steps to carry out their promises. On the other hand, under the plantation scheme there was to be a complete clearance of the Irish from the lands granted to Undertakers. Although never thoroughly carried out, this project marks off the Plantation of Ulster from all other plantation projects of the Stuart period.