Neither is the assertion that evictions of the tenantry, to any extent, have taken place, borne out by the evidence; and where such have occurred, it is admitted, or proved in the explanations of the accused, that non-payment of rent, and general misconduct, were the causes to which they might be attributed.
Mr Dennis Kennedy is asked—"56. Has there been any consolidation of farms in the district?—No, not in my district."
Mr Michael Digan—"46. Has there been any consolidation of farms in the district with which you are acquainted in the county of Tipperary?—No. In my immediate neighbourhood the cottier system of having five or six acres is more practised than in the county of Clare."
And where any instances have been adduced, on turning to the explanations we find they were fully merited; while many alluded to by the priests and agitators will give some idea of the lengths those persons go, and the distance of time they are compelled to travel back to support their assertions. One man, Mr John Moylan, refers to "exterminations" which occurred just thirty years ago "on the estate of Mr Kinahan;" and was replied to by that gentleman's son, who states "that his father paid the then tenants £10,000 for their interest."
All the witnesses bear testimony to the mild manner in which those removals, necessary for the good of all parties, have been effected.
Mr Edward Byrne is asked—"35. Does the landlord, in general, remove for any other reason than considering that the lands are too thickly populated?—I never heard of the landlords putting them out, except that the land was too much divided, or too much devoted to the support of those families, that nothing would be left to pay the rent."
And Mr John Meagher—"27. When there is a large number of tenants upon a townland, what do they do when the middleman's lease expires?—I never knew them to do any thing harsh to them; they let them pull on one with another, except where some of their lands are mixed with their own, and they get some of the land to themselves.
"28. Do they give the tenants any thing in that case?—Yes, they forgive them what is due; and I knew one landlord to give a man £24 for leaving four acres, and forgave him what was due, and he was tenant-at-will."
Mr O'Brien Dillon, who has been proved to be very inaccurate in his statements, and who most probably, if asked to name the instances, could not adduce one, is forced to admit the paucity of their numbers—"67. Have tenants who have made improvements been ejected in order to get in fresh tenants, or been charged a higher rent themselves?—I do not know of any having been ejected on that estate for that reason; but there are some few instances in which they have been so treated: I should say, not generally; very few instances indeed."
Now, touching the disputed point of want of tenant-right, and insecurity of tenure, and displacement of the tenantry, we have quoted only the evidence of small farmers and some few agents, with one exception Roman Catholics, and to a man devoted followers of Mr O'Connell; if they have not heard of those dispossessions, and prove on oath the existence of that which he denies, what value should we place upon his statements—"that the enormous extent of the evictions in Tipperary, and the want of security in possession, have been the active causes of the state of crime in that county?" We have the sworn testimony of reluctant witnesses against the honourable gentleman's whole assertions. What becomes, then, of the one hundred and fifty thousand "men in buckram?" Could a third of the population have been dispossessed unknown to their neighbours?