Page:Confiscation in Irish history.djvu/64

 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. 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. 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