carried on as to what these grants amounted to[1] There were also charges of chief rents and of beeves, originally payable to the Crown, but which had been granted the one to Sir Nicholas Malby, and the other to Sir Richard Shaen.[2] Against these, or at least against the way in which they were assessed, the inhabitants protested.
It is noteworthy that in these controversies both the King and Chichester showed themselves favourable to the O'Ferralls, and that there was no hint of any attempt to deprive them of their lands.[3]
A portion of the O'Ferralls had joined in Tyrone's rebellion, and had been attainted and outlawed—chiefly, said they, through Lord Delvin's procurement. Lord Delvin sought to obtain possession of their lands, by virtue of a grant to him by Elizabeth of forfeited lands value £100 a year.[4]
The O'Ferralls had submitted to the Crown under promise of pardon and remission of forfeiture; nevertheless the widow and son of Lord Delvin had obtained a warrant to pass to themselves nearly one-half of the County Longford. The King, however, ordered Delvin's patent to be can-
- ↑ Cal. St. Paps., 1605, p. 312, gives the case for Ld. Delvin. It would appear that it was chiefly O'Ferrall Bane and his followers who were affected.Cal. St. Paps., 1606, p. 536, and 1606, p. 45, also deal with this controversy.
- ↑ £200 a year to Malby; 120 beeves to Shaen. The latter is said to have been an Irishman of low origin. He claimed kinship with the O'Ferralls.
- ↑ King to Chichester. Cal. St. Paps., 1607, p. 134: also Deputy and Council to the Privy Council. Ibid, p. 157.
- ↑ Cal. Stat. Paps., 1607, p. 159. Statement of the proceedings in the case between Ld. D. and the O'Fs.
