states of the Earl of Desmond, in Munster, served as a warning to James and his advisers. They were careful not to repeat errors which, so far from securing Munster from a repetition of rebellious acts, proved a constant source of vexation to the Government of England, and converted a fruitful province into what was little better than a wilderness. The remarks of Sir John Davys on this head are well worth attention :

"The possessions," he says, " of the Irish in the province of Ulster, though it was the most rude and unreformed part of Ireland, and the seat and nest of the last great rebellion, are now better disposed and established than any of the lands in the other provinces which have been passed and settled on surrenders. For as the occasion of the disposing of those lauds did not happen witliout the special providence and finger of God, which did cast out those wicked and ungrateful traitors who were the only enemies of the reformation of Ireland, so the distribution and plantation thereof hath been projected and prosecuted by the special direction and care of the King himself; wherein his Majesty hath corrected the errors before spoken of, committed by King Henry II. and King John, in distributing and planting the first conquered land. For although there were six whole shires to be disposed, his Majesty gave not an entire country or county to any particular persons; much less did he grant jura regalia, or any extraordinary liberties. For the best British undertaker had but a proportion of 3,000 acres for himself, with power to create a manor, and hold a court baron; albeit many of these undertakers were of as great birth and quality as the best adventurers in the first Conquest.

Again, his Majesty did not utterly exclude the natives out of this plantation, with a purpose to cast them out, as the Irish were excluded out of the first English colonies; but made a mixed plantation of British and Irish, that they might grow up together in one nation; only, the Irish were in some places transplanted from the woods and mountains into the plains and open countries, that, being removed, like wild fruit trees, they might grow the milder, and bear the better and sweeter fruit.* And this truly is the master-piece

*A euphuism of Sir John Davys, not caring to renew ancient griefs and grievances, too recent in his time to be touched otherwise than

and most excellent part of the work of reformation, and is worthy indeed of his Majesty's royal pains."*

Sir John does not specifically mention the colony of Munster, but a very brief reference to its main features will convince my. readers that he had it in his thoughts, and mentally contrasted the more prudent and economic arrangements of James I. with the extravagant estates granted by Queen Elizabeth, for peopling Munster with English settlers. A few items of these grants will be sufficient. She bestowed upon Sir Christopher Hatton, in the county of Waterford, 10,910 acres; to Sir Walter Raleigh she gave 12,000 acres; to Sir Wm. Herbert, in Kerry, 13,276 acres; to Fane Beecher and Hugh Worth, 24,000 acres; to Arthur Hyde, 11,766 acres; to Sir Wm. Courtney, in Limerick, 10,500 acres; to Sir Edward Fytton, in Tipperary, &c., 11,515 acres; to Sir George Bourcher, 12,880 acres. Although these lands were granted in fee at 2d. and 3d. per acre, the undertakers, as they were called, were exempted from all payment of rent for five years; at the end of that period they were to pay only half rent for three years; for ten years they were to be allowed to export their produce free of all duty, and import all that they required from England on the same easy terms. They were to be exempted from all service and

tenderly. The removal of the ancient Irish proprietors, or rather the native farmers, from the woods and mountains, was dictated solely by prudence and the desire of security. Placed in the plains and open country, they could not combine in secret against the new colonists, but would be under constant surveillance; nor could they escape punishment by retiring into woods and caves. The grievance of removing them, at least in Ulster, would be little better than imaginary, for they were liable to be continually shifted under the rule of their ancient native chiefs, and their agriculture (if it deserved the name) was of the rudest kind.

True Cause, &c., p. 221.

† On this occasion Spenser, the poet, had a grant of 3,028 acres at the annual rent of 171. 7s. 6d.

assessment for ever, being only bound to provide one armed footman for every 200 acres of their tenancy, one horse for every 300, and suffer no Irish resident amongst them. Indulgencies so extravagant and absurd would have been sufficient to ruin any colony. Exemption from rent relaxed the sinews of industry and enterprise. Very few set themselves seriously to work to cultivate lands, too extensive to be carefully managed or turned to good account, held also on too easy terms to stimulate activity. The conditions imposed were never fulfilled, as might have been expected; and at p. 253 of this volume we have a most interesting account of the state of the Colony, in the return to a Commission of Inquiry issued in the year 1611.* The Commission gives the names of all the undertakers, the acreage of their holdings, their musters, their breaches of the articles of plantation, and the consequent forfeiture of certain portions of their estates. From Sir Wm. Herbert's grant, then in the possession of Sir Thomas Roper, they deducted certain lands, of which the particulars are not specified (p. 257); from Fane Beecher's, then held by Richard Shipward, 3,000 acres; and from Hugh Worth's, held by Sir Bern. Grenville, 2,200 acres (p. 255); Arthur Hyde's grant was surrendered by his son. From Sir Wm. Courtenay's grant, then held by George Courtenay, they deducted 3,590 acres (p. 253); from Sir Edward Fytton's, 3 ploughlands and a half (p. 254);

*

Among the rest it is interesting to find the name of Silvanus Spencer, or Spenser, the son of the poet, still holding the seignory of Kilcolman granted to his father. His demesnes are reckoned at 300 acres, fee-farms 700 acres, leases 1,200 acres. The commissioners deducted from him 900 acres. His original rent was 197. 10s., abated to 147. 5s. 10d. He was non-resident, and most of his under-tenants were 'mere Irish." This must be considered as entirely disposing of the assertion that his father, the poet, died in actual want.

from Sir George Bourchier's, then held by Sir John Bourchier, 2,588 ac. (p. 255); and so of many others.*

In almost every instance these forfeitures were incurred by the neglect of one condition, viz., the allowing Irish under-tenants to settle on the lands. The notice continually occurs: "The under-tenants dwelling upon the "land are for the most part Irish;" or "The articles "of this plantation for the granting of estates are not "observed. Most of the dwellers in the land are Irish;" or, "Many mere Irish are under-tenants to the free"holders and farmers." The original The original projectors of the colony had no other idea of securing it from danger, or preserving the lives and property of those who took part in it, or at the utmost of preventing them from degenerating, as so many English had already degenerated, into Irishmen, Hibernicis ipsis Hiberniores-than by absolutely prohibiting the residence of any natives among them. From previous experience they clearly foresaw that if this were allowed the native would soon dispossess the new settlers. He would multiply faster; he would bring his own compatriots round him; he would take part with his native chief against the Englishman on all occasions, assist in his maraudings and oppressions, serve him as a spy and a guide, and thus cut off in detail, by various means, the foreign usurper. It had never yet been seen that any English colonist had prospered for any length of time with Irish neighbours around him. He had been subject to midnight

* As no notice is given of Sir Walter Raleigh's grant, I suppose he must have held it until his attainder, when, of course, it would be forfeited. Sir Christopher Hatton disposed of the seignory of Knockmoane, which fell into the hands of Roger Dalton; as nearly two thirds of the rent were abated, the lands must have been forfeited in the same proportion. See p. 257.

attacks, had his produce or cattle stolen, without means of redress, had found no more protection from "cuttings' and exactions than if he had been an Irish serf. And without the constant supervision of English law, and the comfort and support of English society, he had been sure to throw off his religion and allegiance, even his very name, and adopt the manners, dress, faith, and insubordination of the native. What then was to be done? What precaution could be adopted, except that which experience suggested? English blood and English loyalty could be only preserved in their purity in the English Pale, from which the Irish were excluded. By planting the colonists compactly together, they would mutually protect each other, and by preventing all Irish residence amongst them, the colony would not be overrun with those plagues and disorders which had hitherto so frequently defeated the best intentions of the English Government.*

But the enormous estates granted to the undertakers of Munster were fatal to the purposes of such a policy. Their great extent induced men of large fortunes and high birth to embark in the project. Such projectors had no intention and no inducement to reside on these Irish estates, where their presence was indispensable, and would have been invaluable; and even if they had resided, the enormous area of their territories would have rendered them isolated and defenceless, especially in a country where there were few roads, and they impassable and unsafe. Debarred from employing Irish under-tenants, and apparently Irish labour of any kind, by the conditions imposed upon them,

* By the original arrangement, every undertaker of 12,000 acres was bound to plant 86 families upon it, that is, English families. See Cox's Ireland, i., 391.

C