1880 (No coercion) 2,585 agrarian crimes.
1881 (Partial and weak coercion) 4,439 " "
1883 (Vigorous coercion) 834 " "
1888 (Vigorous coercion) 660 " "
Mr. Hurlbert, a Roman Catholic, an American, and a personal friend of Mr. Davitt—all which circumstances give a special weight to his testimony, now borne after frequent and lengthened and recent visits to Ireland, and after close converse with men of all classes and of all political and religious views, says in his Ireland under Coercion: "An Irish gentleman from St. Louis brought over a considerable sum of money for the relief of distress in the north-west of Ireland, but was induced to entrust it to the League, on the express ground that, the more people were made to feel the pinch of the existing order of things, the better it would be for the revolutionary movement." —The Irish Question, I., 193. By Dr. Bryce.
Some time after the Great Famine, the Government brought in an Act called the Encumbered Estates Act. A judge was appointed to act as auctioneer. The income of the estate was set out in schedule form, and a man purchased that income by competition in open court. He got with his purchase what was supposed to be the best title then known, commonly called "A Parliamentary title." If he wanted to sell again, that was enough. Many years after the bargain was made by the court, Mr. Gladstone dropped in and upset it. A friend of mind purchased a guaranteed rental of £600 a year, subject to £300 annuity, as well as other charges, head rent, &c., &c. Now the Government may have been said to have pledged its honour to him, speaking by the mouth of a judge in open court, that it was selling him £600 a year. Surely it was a distinct breach of faith to swoop down on the purchaser, years after, and reduce the £600 to £500 without reducing the charges also in due proportion, or giving back one-sixth of the purchase money. Mr. Gladstone and his party say the land was rented too high. Does that (if true) get over the dishonesty of selling for £600 a year what was really worth only 500? Such a transaction as that between man and man would be actionable as a fraud. But this excuse is not true, for when any tenant wants to sell his tenant-right he gets a large price for it, far larger than the normal proportion to his rent. When a nation sanctions such absolute dishonesty as this on the part of its Prime Minister, it is not surprising that the shrewd Irish peasant profits by the lesson and improves the example.
The following in reference to the Olphert estate evictions under the Plan of Campaign is from the Freeman's Journal. Will Mr. Spencer when exhibiting his photos, state the facts about this case—which reason and common-sense show to be altogether in the landlord's favour?