Page:Studies in Irish History, 1649-1775 (1903).djvu/186

James II earlier, when "it appeared that one interest or the other must suffer" the government had deemed it expedient "that the loss should fall on the Irish." The latter were now the stronger party and the rule was reversed.

There was, however, a third class of landowners who had a much stronger claim upon the consideration of the legislature. A great part of the lands held under the Act of Settlement had been acquired from the original grantees by purchasers who were in no way responsible for the policy of confiscation. When the repeal of that Act was first mooted it seems to have been generally apprehended that the rights of this class would be completely disregarded. Whether injustice so flagrant was ever really contemplated it is impossible to say. What is certain is that an elaborate memorial drawn up by Chief Justice Keating "in the behalf of purchasers who for great and valuable considerations have acquired lands and tenements in this kingdom" was presented to James, and that, if we may judge by the provisions of the Act of Repeal, the justice of his arguments was fully recognised by the parliament. In order to satisfy the claims of these persons it was accordingly enacted that all who had obtained property from the grantees "for good and valuable consideration, and not 174