Page:Confiscation in Irish history.djvu/125

 In March, 1641, he wrote confirming the "graces," and suggested that a Bill should be brought in for confirming sixty years' titles in Connaught and Ormond. Borlase and Parsons, the Lords Justices, protested against this and still urged a plantation. Nothing was done by July, when Parliament was prorogued. Before it met the great rebellion of 1641 had broken out. We cannot doubt that one of the contributory causes to it was the treatment of the landowners of Connaught, Clare and Ormond.

The confiscation and projected plantation in these districts never took effect, although a complete survey, now unfortunately lost, was made of all the lands affected; and after the Restoration the title of the Crown to Connaught was expressly renounced. Its importance in Irish history is that it marks a progressive decline in the morality of English dealings with Ireland.

The statesmanship of the Tudors had, on the whole, been regardful of the rights of the Irish. They had utilised to the full the right of the sword, but they had seldom stooped to mere legal quibbles as a pretext for spoliation.

James I., or his advisers, had in his early years followed this course. Alongside of much injustice we find conscientious endeavours to deal fairly with those in actual occupation of land. But as time goes on we find a deterioration in the moral standard. The distinction between old Irish and old English is revived, to the disadvantage of the