against the King. And finally if they abandoned law, and pleaded that that their long standing possession gave them an equitable claim to consideration they were told that since their lands had descended by gavelkind, and since that custom had been declared illegal, none of them could prove any real long standing title to the lands in their possession.[1]
There remained the title of the Earl of Ormond. There is a certain amount of doubt as to whether Henry's grant to Earl Piers had really included the whole of the lands in question.[2] Ely had been dealt with apparently without any reference to the Ormond rights, and the case of Ara seems also doubtful. Now the Crown lawyers seem boldly to have contended that none of these lands had been included in the grant. The Patent was not to be found in the ordinary rolls, although it was in the memoranda rolls of the Exchequer, and still exists; and they were unaware of the existence of the Act 30 of Henry VIII. confirming it. Therefore when the project of a plantation was first started it was supposed that no effective opposition could be offered by the Earl of Ormond.
But as a matter of fact the Ormonds had all the title deeds, and so were in a very strong position, as the Crown lawyers were acting more or less in the dark.
- ↑ Some years before Strafford's time there had been various projects for a plantation of these districts. One is given at p. 150, Cal. St. Paps., 1647—60. Addenda, 1625—60, dated 1630. By this one-fourth was to be given to planters; the Earl, natives possessed of lands by virtue or pretence of patents and those having chiefries were to be favourably dealt with.
- ↑ It certainly included the baronies of Ormond. Rights and services due to the E. of Ormond from the cantred of Kilnamanagh are mentioned in Cal. St. Paps., 1607, p. 195.
