Page:Confiscation in Irish history.djvu/240

 forfeited. But the Irish House of Lords protested vigorously against punishing by attainder the families of men who had been killed in the service of one whom they had considered to be their lawful sovereign. According to Froude, a less sweeping measure was introduced. But the Act in its final form as printed in the Irish Statutes expressly convicts and attaints all persons who either had been found by a jury or who within two years from September 1st, 1697, should be found to have died or to have been slain in actual rebellion.

This Act, as I have already said, took away from the Crown all power to reverse outlawries, etc. not reversed or pardoned before July 27th, 1697, except in the cases of those who had been adjudged, or who within two years might be adjudged within the Articles of Gal way and Limerick.

But from the operation of the Act were excluded thirteen peers, including Sarsfield, and about nine other persons. Of these Lord Kerry and Lord Kingston were Protestants. These the King could pardon if he wished and if they submitted; and accordingly most of them were pardoned and restored.

Much confusion exists in our printed sources owing to the two Acts of the Irish Parliament of 1697, and the English Resumption Act of 1700. This last did not interfere with those persons who had been adjudged to be within the Articles of Limerick and Galway. But it led to a more