1 ment of 1689, this charge, at least, is grossly calumnious. The Irish legislators maintained, indeed, that the sales which had been effected could not invalidate the claims of the old proprietors to re-enter into the property of which they had been unjustly deprived; but they admitted in clear and express terms the right of the purchasers to full compensation. The statute notices that some persons who were strangers to those to whom some of the confiscated lands were distributed had come into possession of the same after the Act of Settlement, 'for good and valuable consideration, and not considerations of blood, affinity or marriage,' and it declares that these persons are hereby intended to be reprised for such their purchases in the manner hereafter to be expressed.' From what source, then, was this compensation to be derived? We have seen that the long succession of confiscations of Irish land which had taken place from the days of Mary to the Act of Settlement had been mainly based upon real or pretended plots of the owners of the soil, which enabled the Government, on the plea of high treason, to appropriate the land which they desired. In 1689 most of the English proprietors of Irish soil were in actual correspondence with William, and were therefore in the eyes of the Irish Parliament guilty of high treason. The Irish legislators now followed the example of the British Governments, and by a clause of extreme severity they pronounced the real estates of all Irish proprietors who dwelt in any part of the three kingdoms which did not acknowledge King James, or who aided, abetted or corresponded with the rebels, to be forfeited and vested in the Crown,2 and from this source they proposed to compensate the purchasers under the Act of Settlement. In the words of the statute, 'Every reprisable person or persons, his heirs, executors, or administrators, who shall be removed from any of the lands, tenements, and hereditaments, which are hereby to be restored to the ancient proprietor thereof, as herein before expressed, shall be reprised and have other lands, tenements, &c., of equal value granted unto him out of the said forfeited lands hereby vested in your Majesty.' 'For the more speedy and effectual granting of the said reprisals,' commissioners were to appointed to hear the evidence both of those who claimed as heirs of the old proprietors, and of those who were purchasers under the Act of Settlement.' arms against your most sacred Majesty, either in this kingdom, or in the kingdom of England or Scotland, or who corresponded or kept intelligence with, or went contrary to their allegiance, to dwell or stay among the said rebels, or any of them, be and are henceforth forfeited unto, and vested in your Majesty' (§ 10). These words if strictly construed would comprehend all Irish proprietors who were living peacefully in England, or who had written on private business to anyone who was living in any part of the kingdom which acknowledged William. It is, however, quite possible, and in my judgment much more probable, that they were intended only to include those who had taken some active step in favour of William, or had formally acknowledged his authority. The Act of Attainder, as we shall see, confiscated conditionally the land of absentees, unless they returned Such a by a particular date. Lord Macaulay, in his description of this Act, has devoted pages of brilliant rhetoric to setting forth in the strongest possible terms the iniquity of despoiling the purchaser who had invested his savings in Irish land, but he has made no mention whatever of the compensation that was to be assigned to him. Yet surely this is not an immaterial element in judging the law. What would be thought of a writer who, in opposing, on the ground of justice, a bill for appropriating private property for railways or some other public purpose, kept absolutely out of sight the fact that it was intended to compensate the owner for his loss? The memorial drawn up by Judge Keating against the These are the most important provisions of this famous law, for it is not necessary to enter into the complicated arrangements that were made in the case of those who had obtained estates in Connaught. The Act must be judged in the light of the antecedent events of Irish history, and with a due allowance for the passions of a civil war, for the peculiar position of the legislators, and for the extreme difficulty of all legislation on this subject. An inquisition into titles limited to forty-eight years could hardly appear extraordinary in a country where such inquisitions had very recently extended over centuries, or to men whose fathers had vainly asked that sixty years of undisturbed possession should secure them in the enjoyment of their estates. Much would have depended upon the manner in which the clause relating to confiscations and the clauses relating to reprisals were actually carried out. The former, if strictly interpreted, Act, from which Macaulay has drawn most of his arguments, dismisses the proposed reprisals in the most cursory manner (Append. to King), but this memorial was drawn up before the Bill had passed, and when it was still uncertain what course the Irish Legislature would pursue. 1 Dopping, the Bishop of Meath, who was in this Parliament, delivered a remarkable speech against the Bill for repealing the Act of Settlement (which is given in the Appendix to King). In it he deals at length with the question of reprisals. His objections on this ground were (1) that the purchasers under the Act of Settlement were compelled to make the exchange; (2) that the Commissioners, and not they themselves, were to decide whether the compensation was of equal value to what was taken away; (3) that the purchasers were to be deprived first, and might have to wait for their compensation; and (4) that by a clause which the House of Lords introduced into the Bill, in the forfeited estates the remainders expectant on estates for lives' were saved, so that, in the opinion of the Bishop, 'most of the reprisable persons must part with an inheritance to them and their heirs, and get only in lieu of it an estate for life.' It is obvious that this last objection is much the most serious. It appears that the Commons insisted that the remainders should be forfeited and vested in the King,' but after a conference with the House of Lords they yielded about this particular class of remainders.Somers' Tracts, xi. 410. A True would have led to scandalous and monstrous injustice, but it might also be construed in such a manner as to apply only to those who were distinctly committed to the side of the Prince of Orange. The measure of repeal, however, was speedily followed by another Act of much more sweeping and violent injustice. The Act of Attainder, which was introduced in the latter part of June, aimed at nothing less than a complete overthrow of the existing land system in Ireland. A list divided into several groups, but containing in all more than 2,000 names, was drawn up of landowners who were to be attainted of high treason. One group comprised persons who were said to be notoriously and actively engaged in the rebellion against the King, and who were at this time in Ireland, and these were to become liable to all the penalties and forfeitures of high treason unless they voluntarily delivered themselves up to take their trial before August 10. Another group consisted of those who had left the kingdom after November 5, 1688, and who had disobeyed the royal proclamation of March 25, summoning them to Ireland to take part in the defence of the King. Account of the Proceedings of the Parliament of Ireland to the 29th of June. The provisions about the different kinds of remainders in the Act of Repeal are various and extremely intricate, and I cannot undertake to pronounce upon their merits. Keating, alluding to the project of giving reprisals, questions whether the rebels' properties were sufficient to furnish them. It is plain that he, at least, did not consider that the Act of Repeal was meant to confiscate the estates of mere absentees. King Unless they appeared before an Irish Judge before September 1 to justify themselves from any charge that might be brought against them, these also were to be esteemed guilty of high treason. A third group consisted of those who had left Ireland before November 5, 1688, who were living in England, Scotland, or the Isle of Man, and who had likewise disobeyed the proclamation. They were given till October 1 to appear before an Irish Judge, and if they failed to do so, they became liable to the penalties of high treason, unless in the meantime the King had gone over to England or Scotland, and had there received from the absentees satisfactory evidence of their loyalty. In the meantime, and until the return and acquittal of the persons comprised in these groups, their lands were to be vested in the King. The Act then proceeded to state that whereas several persons are, and for some time past have been, absent out of this kingdom, and by reason of sickness, nonage, infirmities, or other disabilities, may for some time further be obliged so to stay out of this kingdom, or be disabled to return thereunto, nevertheless, it being much to the weakening and impoverishing of this realm that any of the rents or profits of the lands &c. therein should be sent into or spent in any other place beyond the seas, but that the same should be kept and employed within the realm for the better support and defence thereof,' it was expedient that the lands belonging to those persons, also, should be provisionally vested in the King. If, however, these persons or their heirs, having hitherto behaved themselves loyally and faithfully,' should at any future period return to the country, they might be restored to their properties by applying before the close of the law term following their return to the Commissioners, if they were then sitting, or else to the Court of Chancery or of Exchequer.1 6 1 Lord Macaulay says of this Act: If a proscribed person |