# Irish Emigration and The Tenure of Land in Ireland/Chapter 2

CHAPTER II.
In my previous observations I confined myself to the general question as to whether or not, in her present circumstances, and making due allowance for the individual suffering incident to all periods of transition, emigration had been a calamity or a blessing to Ireland; and I endeavoured to show, not only that emigration had on the whole been productive of advantage to both classes affected by it—viz., those who went and those who stayed at home—but that, whether beneficial or otherwise to the empire at large, it was a necessity of our own immediate situation.
I now propose to examine the specific charge directed against the landed proprietors of Ireland—viz., that the legalized injustice of their proceedings has been the principal and active occasion of emigration.
Many eminent persons say that such is the case. "The landlords are the cause of the emigration," is the naked and unqualified statement which has been put forward in Parliament. "More than a million persons have fallen victims to their injustice," is a common assertion, and various instances of wholesale evictions are referred to in illustration ​of the statement. Now, what these gentlemen say I am sure they believe, and the vehemence of the commentary which accompanies their statements is only natural to men of a generous and patriotic temper; but accusations involving a large class of our fellow-countrymen in so hateful a responsibility cannot be lightly accepted, and I therefore propose to examine their validity by such tests as can be conveniently introduced into a hasty controversy like the present.
Indeed, if we believe so much, there is a great deal more we must believe. We must believe that all those general incentives to emigration which I have already enumerated, and which have told with such effect upon England, upon Scotland, and upon Germany, have had no influence in Ireland, although the peculiar circumstances of Ireland were so well calculated to intensify their operation. We must believe that the emigration from Ireland has been entirely confined to the rural population of the country, and confined not only to the rural population, but to less than one-half of the rural population—viz., the occupiers of land. We must believe that the wages of labour have doubled in 15 years—not in consequence of the emigration of the farm-servant as distinguished from the tenant-farmer, but from some other cause which has yet to be explained; and, finally, we must believe that the individuals of that class to which alone it is alleged ​emigration has been confined—viz., the occupiers of land—have one and all vacated their mud cabins and strips of blighted potato ground, not because they found they could no longer feed their pig or grow oats with advantage on an acre of land,—not because they heard that wages were 4s a day in New York and that farms could be got for nothing in the Western States,—not because their friends besought them to cross the Atlantic, and sent millions of money to pay their passage,—but solely and entirely in consequence of their having been driven from their homes by the wanton cruelty of their landlords and the injustice of Parliament—a series of assumptions incompatible with ascertained facts.
Before, however, addressing myself to the details of the question opened up by the foregoing ​considerations, there is one important misconception against which I wish to guard myself. In conducting this inquiry; I have no intention of discussing whether the landlords of Ireland, as a class, are good men or bad men, kind or cruel. In all probability they are as selfish, as interested, and as unscrupulous as any other collection of human beings possessing the same amount of education and intelligence. But the supposed moral attributes of a particular class, or trade, or profession cannot come within the cognizance of the politician. His only safe rule will be to take it for granted that every class, and every individual in every class, will pursue his own advantage with unflinching pertinacity; and, having meted out as justly as the clumsiness of human legislation may admit, the boundaries which are to circumscribe the respective rights of each, he must be content to accept as economically legitimate whatever does not overpass them. In all ages there have been unrelenting creditors who have insisted on their pound of flesh, but would it not be unreasonable on that account to stigmatize the recovery of debt as injustice? Unhappily, legal obligations can seldom be rendered co-extensive with moral responsibilities, and an attempt to correct an exceptional hardship in one direction, too frequently leads to the infliction of greater injuries in another.
Still less do I propose to notice any particular accusations of cruelty or injustice which may ​be alleged against individual proprietors. In the first place, they are necessarily derived from ex parte statements, and their merits cannot be readily investigated; and, in the next, their ​assistance in guiding us to an opinion on questions involving such an enormous range of observation must obviously be infinitesimal. Two of the very instances adduced during a recent debate in Parliament, prove the truth of this observation. For the first is the case of a landlord who turns his tenants out at midnight in winter, without previous notice, and the other tells us of a would-be purchaser of an Irish estate who was only prevented from evicting a number of cottiers by being himself hanged for murder before he had concluded his bargain. Now, as by law every tenant must receive at the least eight or nine months' notice before he can be forced to surrender possession of his holding, the first case proves nothing against the laws regulating the relation of landlord and tenant, while in the second story the hero, not having been an Irish proprietor at all, can scarcely ​be paraded as a type of the class. That many acts of harshness and cruelty have been perpetrated in Ireland, more particularly during the time of the famine, I have no doubt. But, it is to be remembered that the famine year was an exceptional period; a sudden storm had broken out of a clear sky; the ship lay a wreck on her beam-ends. It was such a scene as reveals the mingled baseness and heroism of human nature, and doubtless, in the extremity of peril which threatened the landlords, their wives, and their children, many a man enforced his legal rights with distressing severity. That this was not the general practice is clearly stated by Judge Longfield in his evidence before Mr. Maguire's committee.
In answer to a question as to whether or not a bad feeling had arisen from many proprietors in different parts of Ireland having taken steps, at the time of the famine, to consolidate their farms, he replies, "I do not think that had much to do with it; the tenants were voluntarily giving up their lands in great quantities then;" and a little further on he states that "cases of forcible eviction for the proposed consolidation were very few.". Now Judge Longfield's testimony on such ​a point is conclusive. He was the first and most important witness summoned before Mr. Maguire's committee. His professional position, his experience, the peculiar nature of his duties, his well-known calmness and impartiality, and above all his manifest sympathy with the cause of the tenant, invest his evidence on matters of fact with an authority that cannot be gainsaid. And it stands to reason that matters should have fallen out as Judge Longfield has described. What inducements had the poor people to stay? Their staff of life had withered in their hands and could not be replaced. A plough could hardly have turned in ​their potato gardens, they had neither seed, nor horses, nor even food, to carry them through the winter. No difference of tenure would have saved them. Had they owned the fee, it would have been all the same. Their only chance of life was to get away—some to the poor-house, others to America. As for the landlord, his position was every whit as bad. It was not a question of rent, ​but of existence. His lands lay around him a poisonous waste of vegetable decay, while 25s. in the pound of poor-rate was daily eating up the fee-simple of his estate. Self-interest, duty, common sense, all dictated the same course,—the enlargement of boundaries, the redistribution of farms, and the introduction of a scientific agriculture, at whatever cost of sentiment or of individual suffering. Even so, the struggle too frequently proved unsuccessful, and the subsequent obliteration of nearly an entire third of the landlords of Ireland, while it associates them so conspicuously with the misfortunes of their tenants, may be accepted in atonement of whatever share they may have had in conniving at those remoter causes which aggravated the general calamity.
​On turning to the statistics which bear upon this question, the argument I have thus roughly sketched ​will be enforced in a still more striking manner. If it is true, as is asserted, that the emigration has ​been principally confined to a class which cultivates the soil— the only class, in fact, which can ​be directly affected by the tyranny and injustice of the landed proprietor—it must necessarily follow ​that the number of emigrants must bear a very close proportion to the number of persons who ​have been so ruthlessly dealt with. Now the reductions of the holdings in Ireland between 1841 ​and the present date is, of course, the measure of the limits within which the consolidation of farms ​has been effected and evictions have been possible. But it so happens that the total number of holdings in Ireland containing 15 acres and upwards has increased enormously since 1841. In fact there are now nearly twice as many small farmers—using the term in what in England would be thought its most modest acceptation—as there were before the famine. This will, undoubtedly, be considered an extraordinary statement, but it is, nevertheless, the fact, that holdings of between 15 and 30 acres have increased by 61,000, or 78 per cent. within the last 20 years, and holdings above 30 acres by 109,000, or 224 per cent., during the same period, while those between 5 and 15 acres have decreased by less than half those amounts; ​the emigration, so far as it has extended to the occupying class at all, having been chiefly confined to the poor people who attempted to get a living out of bits of land ranging from half-an-acre to five or six acres, and whose destiny, no custom, or law of tenant-right, however liberal, could have materially affected. No doubt, the diminution of the holdings in this last category has been enormous, but even among these, as compared with the area of land under tillage in Ireland, the reduction has not been so startling as it might have first appeared: the proportion amounting, in ​the case of tenements under five acres, to one per annum on every area of 400 acres; and in the case of holdings under 10 acres to one per annum on every area of 1,600 acres. Of course, the process has neither been so gradual nor so uniform as this calculation would imply, the principal rush having taken place immediately after the potato failure, and from those districts most exposed to its effects; the devastation among the small tenements of Ulster being as tremendous as in any other part of Ireland. Allowing, however, for all subsidiary corrections, it is very evident that so far from the landlords being responsible for the entire emigration, they held no relation, good or bad, with perhaps three-fourths of those who went, even though you counted as emigrants every man, woman, and child that may have quitted—whether of their own free will or on compulsion—the agricultural tenancies that have been extinguished.
​But it is well known that vast numbers of the cottier tenantry, instead of emigrating, were converted into labourers, and either found employment in the neighbourhood of their birthplace or removed into adjoining towns, or came over to England, while hundreds of others were placed in possession of some of the 160,000 farms which, as I have already stated, have been reconstructed since the famine year; thereby reducing still ​further the number of the land-occupying class who have taken part in emigration, and who probably with their families have never amounted to one-fourth of the entire number.
This moderate share taken by the tenantry in the emigration from Ireland has greatly decreased during the last ten or twelve years. Between 1853 and 1862 the number of farms in the country actually increased under the alleged exterminating policy of the landlords, and if within the last four years there has been a slight diminution, it is to be accounted for by the three successive wet seasons, which signalized the period during which the decrease has taken place. Even so it is probable that for the last twelve or thirteen ​years no more than three or four per cent, of the total number of emigrants have been holders of land.
Such a conclusion is, of course, quite contrary to the popular belief, but it is, nevertheless, a fact within the cognizance of every one who is acquainted with the subject. Judge Longfield states it over and over again. He is asked if he knows ​that a great deal of emigration from Ireland has been going on. "Yes," he replies, "but I do not think that the emigration is much caused by the landlord and tenant question." Again he is asked if good tenants have not been driven away from the country by the supposed insecurity of the tenure. He answers, "In some instances an active man may have been prevented from investing his capital in Ireland on that account, but I do not think that class form a large proportion of the emigrants as yet," and a little further on he calculates the emigrants who belong to the tenant-farmer class as amounting to about four out of every 100 persons who quit Ireland, the great bulk of the exodus being composed of small tradesmen, artizans, and labourers.
Happily, the case admits of even closer proof. In the denunciatory addresses to which I have referred, the tenant of Ulster is justly indicated as occupying an exceptionally good position, and many have declared they would be satisfied if the tenantry of the south could obtain, under an Act of Parliament, one-tenth of the security accorded by custom to the tenantry of Ulster. If, therefore, the oppression and legalized injustice which is supposed to desolate the homesteads of the south, is absent from the north, it would be natural to imagine that the extinction of tenancies in Ulster would have been infinitesimal; but as a matter of fact the havoc amongst the small farmers ​of Ulster during the first few years succeeding the potato failure was as portentous as in any other province in Ireland, for whereas in Leinster only 44,514, in Minister 85,929, in Connaught 78,958 holdings between one and fifteen acres disappeared, in Ulster as many as 95,429 have been obliterated. If we restrict the comparison to holdings between one and five acres, Ulster's sinister pre-eminence over Leinster and Munster is still maintained, nearly twice as many holdings of this description having been extinguished in Ulster as in Munster, and almost three times as many as in Leinster, the numbers being in Leinster 27,007, in Munster 44,956, in Ulster 74,650, and Connaught 81,786.
It has been urged that the foregoing figures prove nothing, inasmuch as Ulster contains a farming population largely in excess of that of Munster and Connaught, and nearly twice as numerous as that of Leinster, and that we must ignore the fact of nearly 100,000 small holdings having disappeared in Ulster, on the ground that they formed a smaller percentage on the total number of farms in that Province than did those which have ​succumbed to a similar fate in Munster, Leinster and Connaught, to the total number of farms in their respective Provinces.
If this latter statement were correct, it would not be a valid objection. Every one is aware that the agriculture of the North has always been in a sounder state than that of the South and West, and in a subsequent chapter I hope to account for that circumstance. But as it happens even the proportionate obliteration of the very small holdings in Ulster, viz: of those between 1 and 5 acres has been 19 per cent greater than what it was in Leinster, within 4¾ per cent of what it was in Munster, only 8½ per cent below what it was in Connaught, ​and almost identical with the general average for the kingdom. It is true, if we ascend to the next class of farms, viz: those between 5 and 15 acres, or if we take the farms of all sizes which have been extinguished in the four provinces during the last five and twenty years, Ulster—as might have been expected—will show a more favourable percentage, the proportionate decrease being 14·2 per cent in Ulster, against 15·1 per cent in Leinster, 29·9 per cent in Munster, and 22·6 per cent in Connaught; but when it is remembered that the absolute number of extinguished farms represented by these percentages is 33·628 in Ulster, as compared with 20·347 in Leinster, 35·144 in Connaught, and 48·900 in Munster, it will be admitted that even from this point of view the share borne by the prosperous tenantry of Ulster in the general ​calamity sufficiently shows with what impartial severity every part of Ireland was visited, and how unfair it is to attribute solely to the oppression of the landlords of the south a disaster which wrought an enormous though perhaps not an equal amount of ruin in those districts where their malign influence is acknowledged not to prevail.
But the measure of the Irish landlord's responsibility is not allowed to be limited by the decrease of agricultural holdings; nay, though it appears from the census returns that during a period of ten successive years, ending in 1861, the number of farms in Ireland actually increased, we are still told that because a considerable portion of the population is leaving the country, its departure cannot possibly be occasioned by any other cause than the consolidating policy of the landlords. Let us then continue the application of the test made use of in the preceding paragraph. If emigration is only occasioned by landlord oppression, Ulster ought to have enjoyed a comparative immunity from the general depletion. But what is the fact? Although immediately after the famine the emigration from the south was, for obvious reasons, in excess—though not very largely—of that from the north, the first ​wave of emigration that ever left the shores of Ireland proceeded from Ulster, and during the last fourteen years Ulster's contribution to the general emigration has been greater than that of either Connaught or Leinster, and in the ratio of twenty-three to twenty-seven as compared with the average of the three provinces.
But the greater density of the population of Ulster may be again suggested in mitigation of this comparison. Such a consideration hardly alters the result. The ratio of emigration from Ulster to the population of that province has been as great as the ratio of emigration to population from Leinster and Connaught, though less than that from Munster in the proportion of 1 to 2.
Parliament and unjust landlords we are told are depopulating the south: what occult agencies are effecting a similar operation in the north?
​There is yet another method at our disposal of testing the justice of these accusations.
By a recent Statute, it has been enacted that no eviction shall take place in Ireland without the intervention of the Sheriff, who is bound to register every operation of the kind. Unluckily this improvement in the law did not occur until March, 1865. Consequently, although we have Sheriff's lists of evictions for some years back, they are more or less imperfect until we come to the returns for the past year, which have been kept in accordance with the Act of Parliament in all the counties of Ireland except four. Of the evictions in these four counties we can arrive at a sufficiently correct estimate by an independent process.
By a previous Act of Parliament every landlord, before proceeding to evict a tenant, was compelled to give notice of his intentions to the relieving officer of the Union, who kept a return of all such notifications: these returns extend over the last six years, and have been presented to Parliament. Of course they do not give us the exact number of actual evictions, because it frequently happens, when the landlord has resorted to this procedure for the recovery of his rent, that the tenant pays up at the last moment, and no eviction takes place, though the notice to the Relieving Officer remains uncancelled. During the first three years of the series great neglect occurred in making up the lists, ​and even for the last year no information is supplied from a considerable number of the electoral divisions. Luckily, however, the returns of the relieving officers from the four counties, for which the Sheriffs made no returns, happen to be perfect, and more than supply the links necessary to complete the list of evictions for the whole of Ireland during the past year, as will be seen on reference to the opposite table. With the exception of those for Dublin, and a few other places, no distinction has been made between the urban and the agricultural evictions, though for the purposes of the present argument such an analysis would have been desirable. On the other hand the return of evictions during a single year is not altogether a safe guide to an average over a longer period. I therefore propose to convert the figures with which we are furnished for 1865, into a round number, and to take the general rate of rural evictions in Ireland at about 1,500 per annum, which is probably considerably in excess of the tenth. (See Table). ​Table showing the Sheriffs' return of evictions actually executed in the year 1865.
| | Actual return of Evictions executed by Sheriffs | Actual return of Evictions executed by Sheriffs | Actual return of Evictions executed by Sheriffs | Actual return of Evictions executed by Sheriffs |
| | in Counties | in Counties of Cities & Counties of Towns | in Counties | in Counties of Cities & Counties of Towns |
| Carlow | 11 | . . | | |
| Dublin | 15 | . . | | |
| Dublin, City of | . . | 42 | | |
| Kildare | 20 | . . | | |
| Kilkenny | 56 | . . | | |
| Kilkenny, City of | . . | 3 | | |
| King's Co | 25 | . . | | |
| Longford | 55 | . . | | |
| Louth - see note | 23 | . . | | |
| Drogheda, Co. of the town of | . . | 5 | | |
| Meath | 27 | . . | | |
| Queen's Co. | 30 | . . | | |
| Westmeath | 15 | . . | | |
| Wexford | 54 | . . | | |
| Wicklow | 14 | . . | | |
| Leinster | | | 345 | 50 |
| Clare | 19 | . . | | |
| Cork | 71 | . . | | |
| Cork, City of | . . | 14 | | |
| Limerick - see note | 66 | . . | | |
| Limerick, City of | . . | . . | | |
| Kerry | 25 | . . | | |
| Tipperary | 36 | . . | | |
| Waterford | 22 | . . | | |
| Waterford, City of | . . | 5 | | |
| Munster | | | 239 | 19 |
| Antrim | 11 | . . | | |
| Armagh | 92 | . . | | |
| Cavan | 36 | . . | | |
| Donegal | 100 | . . | | |
| Down | 29 | . . | | |
| Fermanagh | 25 | . . | | |
| Londonderry | 36 | . . | | |
| Monaghan | 25 | . . | | |
| Tyrone - see note | 130 | . . | | |
| Ulster | | | 484 | . . |
| Galway | 48 | . . | | |
| Leitrim | 47 | . . | | |
| Mayo | 72 | . . | | |
| Roscommon - see note | 79 | . . | | |
| Sligo | 20 | . . | | |
| Connaught | | | 266 | . . |
| Ireland | | | 1334 | 69 |
Table showing the proportion of persons affected by evictions to the average number of Emigrants, 1865. :
| | | | | Yearly average | | | Per-centage of | | |
| | Arable Acres | Population in 1861. | Holdings in 1861. | number of Emigrants, 1860 to 1855. | Evictions, 1865. | Individuals affected. | Persons affected to Emigrants. | of Evictions to Holdings in 1861. | |
| Ulster | 4,057,563 | 1,914,236 | 216,905 | 21,313 | 484 | 2,420 | 11.4 | 0.22 | or 1 in 448 Holdings. |
| Leinster | 4,079,130 | 1,457,635 | 131,420 | 14,774 | 395 | 1,975 | 13.3 | 0.30 | or 1 in 332 Holdings. |
| Munster | 4,538,054 | 1,513,558 | 128,158 | 37,330 | 258 | 1,290 | 3.5 | 0.20 | or 1 in 496 Holdings. |
| Connaught | 2,790,078 | 913,135 | 133,562 | 11,492 | 266 | 1,330 | 11.5 | 0.20 | or 1 in 502 Holdings. |
| Not distributed | | | | 7,078 | | | | | |
| Ireland | 15,464,825 | 5,798,987 | 610,745 | 91,987 | 1,403 | 7,015 | 7.0 | 0.22 | or 1 in 437 Holdings. |
N.B.—This table includes both the Metropolitan and Urban evictions, for which, of course, the landed proprietors of Ireland are not responsible; a very considerable deduction ought to be made from the above figures on that account. ​The total emigration from Ireland has averaged during the same interval about 90,000 a year. If therefore this emigration has been so swollen by evictions, the annual average of such evictions ought to be proportionate to that emigration; but the average of evictions during the same period, as compared with the number of emigrants, has been at the rate of about two to every 100. That is to say, among every 100 persons who have left Ireland during the last six years about ten persons, if we include the family of each
Table showing the emigration from Ireland and its provinces from 1860 to 1865, both years inclusive. :
| | Ireland. | Leinster. | Munster. | Ulster. | Connaught. |
| 1860 | 76,756 | 13,366 | 27,428 | 27,790 | 8,172 |
| 1861 | 58,427 | 8,576 | 22,404 | 21,323 | 6,124 |
| 1862 | 65,179 | 11,368 | 33,452 | 14,115 | 6,244 |
| 1863 | 110,202 | 15,020 | 54,870 | 22,497 | 17,815 |
| 1864 | 106,161 | 19,790 | 48,397 | 19,853 | 18,121 |
| 1865 | 92,728 | 20,524 | 37,426 | 22,301 | 12,477 |
| | 509,458 | 88,644 | 223,977 | 127,879 | 68,953 |
| Not stated | 42,472 |
| Total 6 years | 551,930 |
| Yearly average | 91,988 |
Not only, however, do we know the number of evictions during the last ten years, but we also know what proportion of these evictions was necessitated by the non-payment of rent. It is true the returns which give this information again confound the urban with the rural districts, but it may fairly be supposed that the same proportions prevailed in either category; and if that be taken for granted, it would appear that of the total number of evictions which the landlords have effected in Ireland two-thirds were for non-payment of rent.
​When, therefore, it is considered how many are the other contingencies,—such as the infraction of covenants, intolerably bad cultivation, subletting and illegal squatting, which not only entitle but render it incumbent on a landlord, from time to time, to free his estates of an undesirable tenant; and the extraordinary number of tenants on each estate, which of course must multiply the chances of collision, it is impossible not to come to the conclusion that the annual rate of evictions for other causes than that of non-payment of rent, whether taken with reference to the number of occupiers, or to the extent of the area occupied,—in the one case amounting to 0.08 per cent per annum, in the other to one eviction per annum to every 30,000 acres, proves conclusively that the relations of the landlords of Ireland with their tenantry, arc by no means on that uncomfortable footing which is alleged, and that to describe Ireland as "a land of evictions" is to adopt an expression calculated to convey a false impression.
But it is now objected that though the list of ​evictions may not witness so conclusively as might be desired to the tale of oppression, that a record of
​evictions is, after all, but an incomplete indication of what is going on, and that it is the fear of eviction which uproots the people, before the landlords have occasion to put in motion the machinery of the law. The difficulty of disproving so indefinite a charge is obvious. The fact that more than a decade has passed without diminishing by a single tenancy, the number of farms in Ireland, is not likely to make much impression on those who
​have started this new theory. Still less would the inference that no landlord can have an interest in dispossessing a good tenant who pays his rent. I therefore recur to more positive data. Fortunately for the cause of truth, it is the practice of the Custom House authorities in their register of the persons embarking for foreign countries carefully to note their previous occupations. Now, it appears from these returns, which extend as far back as the year 1854, that the total number of the farming class who have quitted the United Kingdom during the last 13 years, amounted to 86,388 persons, that is to say, to about 4 per cent, of the total emigration. Even supposing, therefore, that no English or Scotch farmer were included in the category, the total number of occupiers leaving the ports of Britain would only form eight per cent of the emigration from Ireland alone; but I have been favoured by the kindness of the Emigration Commissioners with an analysis of the nationality of the agriculturists who emigrated during the years 1865 and 1866, from which it appears that the Irish element was very little in excess of the British, and that the total number of Irish occupiers who sailed from any part of the United Kingdom was exactly 2½ per cent of the Irish emigration during the same period.
​In fact, turn the matter as you will,—apply what test you please,—start from whatever point you
​choose,—all the evidence converges to the same conclusion, and establishes beyond a doubt that out of every 100 persons who cross the Atlantic, not more than two or three arc induced to do so by any difficulties which may have arisen out of their relations with their landlords.
After this I trust we shall hear no more of the landlords of Ireland annually driving hundreds and thousands of victims into exile. And when it is further observed that the number of emigrants who are classed as gentlemen, professional men, merchants, &c. almost equal the number of those who are entered as farmers, perhaps the possibility will be admitted that the same economic laws and inevitable casualties which have influenced the destiny of the one class may have also operated on the other, without their having become the special victims of landlord oppression.
* ↑ Farm wages in the United States—The February official report on agriculture contains on elaborate compilation of the statistics of the wages of farm labour throughout the country. An average rate of wages for white labour, without board is made $28 (=£5. 16s 8d) per month; $15.50c (=£3. 4s 7d) per month with board. The average rate of freedmen's labour is $l6; (=£3. 6s 8d); with board furnished, $9.75c. (=£2. 0s 7½d). The highest rate for States is in California, which is about $45. (=£9. 7s 6d). Massachusetts pays the next highest, $38. (=£7. 18s 4d). The average rate for the Eastern States is $33.30c. (=£6. 18s 9d): in the middle States $30. 7c. (=£6. 5s 3½d): in the Western States, $28. 90c. (=£6. 0s 5d); in the Southern States for freedmen, $16. (=£3. 6s 8d). The increase in the price of labour since 1860, is about 50 per cent.; since 1835 upon Carey's estimate 70 per cent.
* ↑  It is not often, that an opportunity occurs of subjecting these charges to the test of an impartial inquiry, but whenever an investigation is set on foot they hardly sustain strict scrutiny, a fact especially recorded in the summary of the evidence taken before the Devon Commission. "Many of the witnesses appeared to be impressed with the idea that the power of ejectment is frequently used by landlords from caprice to strengthen their political party, or to persecute their religious opponents; and some cases were brought before the commission as instances of that power having been so used. But upon investigation of these cases few of them appear to justify such imputations. In general either the allegations were altogether unfounded, or mainly based upon hear-say—or it appeared that the ejectment was brought in consequence of the tenant having incurred a heavy arrear of rent, and being unwilling, or unable, to discharge it. In many estates, a small sum of money was given to those who resigned their land; and the extent to which the increased holdings were brought, was generally but small, barely sufficient for those who remained." "There is no question that the condition of the property, as well as of the occupiers, in most of these cases, required a change, as their previous state was for the most part very miserable."—Digest Devon Commission, Summary, p. 830. And again: "There were frequent charges made against agents of oppressive conduct, which in general when investigated, appeared merely to have consisted in compelling the payment of an arrear of rent, or preventing a ruinous subdivision of the farms."Digest Devon Commission, Summary, p. 1027. "Evidence of Christopher Galwey, Esq., agent to Lord Kenmare. "My reply to the statement made by Mr. Barry as to the {{hws|dis|dispossession dispossession of tenants on the Earl of Kemare's estates, in the village of Hospital, in the county of Limerick, is as follows:—In the year 1840 the lease of a small farm, comprising twenty-three acres, bordering on the village of Hospital, expired. A number of very poor people, inhabiting the most miserable description of hovels, resided on the skirts of the land; their hovels formed one side of the village of Hospital. I purchased, on the part of the Earl of Kenmare, these holdings from these poor people, at a valuation; and though I cannot now state the precise sum paid to each, the sum total distributed amongst them was £400. They were all perfectly satisfied, and quietly gave up possession. I moreover offered to each of them a free passage to America, with provisions during the voyage, an offer which they all refused to accept." Digest Devon Commission, p. 466.
* ↑  The same opinion was educed by the Devon Commission. "Much evidence of a most contradictory character was given upon the consolidation of small farms into large. Many statements were made of cases in which such consolidation had been effected; but these statements were, in general, met by  counter statements, denying the general truth of the accusation, or alleging great exaggeration in it. It seems to be hardly the province of a digest, such as this, to enter into the question of the veracity of the witnesses in each particular instance of alleged oppressive consolidation, as these instances only affected the characters of particular individuals, and not the general question as relating to the country at large. It may suffice, that it appears that, in some cases, tenants have been ejected for the purpose of consolidating farms; but that there are few estates upon which evictions for this purpose have occurred, though on some of those few estates many tenants have been ejected. "It appears, too, that in general, where such evictions have occurred, the ejected tenants owed considerable arrears of rent, which, in most cases, were remitted, and that some allowance in money or value was made to them. The farms, too, from which they were removed, seem to have usually been below the minimum size capable of affording a maintenance or profitable and constant employment to an average family." Digest Devon Commission, Summary, p. 451.
* ↑ "The effects of sub-division are very bad; first the land is cut into such small patches that a plough and horses in many cases will hardly turn in the field."—Dig. Devon Commission, p. 426. Evidence of John Hancock, Esq., (an Ulster Agent).
* ↑ "To grant to the occupiers the fee of their holdings, freed from every rent and tax, would not cure our vital distemper. This is undeniable, when we find that the day labouring population in many districts, are almost wholly without employment, and that the entire produce of the holdings of nearly one-half of the occupiers of land throughout Ireland would be inadequate to the proper sustenance of the families residing upon them, supposing that no charge for rent or taxes existed."Dig. Dev. Com. Summary, p. 757.
* ↑ As many as 3,000,000 persons were at one time in receipt of public relief.
* ↑  The poverty stricken condition of the small tenantry of Ireland at this period cannot be depicted in truer or more graphic terms than those adopted by Mr. Fishbourne, himself a tenant farmer. "The small tenantry are generally without any capital, except what is barely sufficient to get in the crop and keep a cow. Many of them are in a deplorable condition, being over-whelmed with debts to loan funds, usurers, and mealmen, owing to the damage to their potatoes for the last three years. In several instances their stock and furniture have been sold, under warrants from loan banks, &c; that I know of my own knowledge."—Digest Devon Commission, p. 199, evidence of Jos. Fishbourne, Farmer.
* ↑ One landlord alone spent £13,000 in assisting those who had flocked into the poor-house to emigrate.—See Answers to Queries, p. 292.
* ↑  The difficulties arising out of this situation of affairs is admirably described in the summary prefixed to the digest of the Evidence given before the Devon Commission.—See Appendix, p. 145.That as a general rule the inevitable changes were effected in a humane manner is sufficiently exemplified in the subjoined evidence, taken at random from a mass of similar statements. Andrew Durham, Esq., Land Proprietor. "Has there been any considerable consolidation of farms in your neighbourhood?—The tendency to consolidate is increasing, and encouraged by most landlords. It is generally effected by purchase, and not attended by agrarian disturbances. The consequences are greater productiveness, more tillage, and increased employment of agricultural labour. Rents are paid in the same proportion."—Dig. Dev. Com. p. 456.   Mr. John McCorten, Linen Manufacturer, Bleacher and Land Agent. "Have you known many instances of ejectment without compensation, in order to effect such a consolidation?—No, I do not think it is ever done. It would be looked upon as a very tyrannical measure; and consolidation is very rarely attempted, unless where it can be done without injury to any party." "What becomes generally of the out-going tenants in such cases; do they emigrate, or do they locate themselves elsewhere?—Some emigrate, and others locate themselves elsewhere. In some cases they become labourers, or go to some other employment."—Ibid. p. 417. Lieutenant-General Sir Richard Bourke, Bart., Land Proprietor and Magistrate. "Has there been any consolidation of farms in the district with which you are acquainted?—Very considerable within these twenty-five years. I should say, in general, that the consolidation has been advantageous to the property and to the occupier left upon the land, as he has been placed in a more comfortable position; and in the cases of those who have been removed, where the removal has been managed with humanity and discretion, I am not aware that they have been the sufferers. I have myself removed persons whom I have sent to New South Wales, and I am sure they are much better off than they were in Ireland. I began very early. Some farms of mine came out of lease between 1818 and 1827; and in many, where there was a population which I thought it not to the advantage of the landlord or the occupier to remain upon the land, I had to remove a great many of those, and I hope I removed them without any great hardship or oppression; and their farms have been since in a very good condition, with only one tenant upon each farm. "To what size did you raise the farms?—From twenty to thirty acres in some cases; in other cases, from fifty to sixty.  "Have you found that those farms have been subdivided?—"No; I have looked very close after them to prevent it, but it requires a great deal of supervision on the part of the landlord and agent. "You assisted them to emigrate?—Yes; and in other cases, where there were mountains attached to the farms, I gave them a part of the mountain, and they have been acting since as labourers to farmers on the estate. In other cases, I gave them sums of money to go away; but in no case did I ever turn a man out with harshness. "What system did you adopt with respect to those who emigrated?—I paid their passage, and gave them a small sum of money in hand, and gave them a recommendation to some friend there. That has been done since I came home from Australia—since the year 1838. "Has the course adopted by you been the course generally followed out in the district?—I believe, in many cases, it may have been adopted, and in others it may not. Hence arose the complaints."—Dig. Dev. Com. p. 465. James Galwey, Esq., Land Agent. "When I became agent to one of the properties, there was a good number of people put out at a particular place, where it was necessary they should be got rid of. They had not paid rent for years, and they got £3, and some of them £4 or £5, up to £7, and they went away."—Ibid. p. 466. "I have always given them a year's notice. I have said, 'I will not give you notice to quit, but the next year you must go.' It has been because they have been complained of as bad characters. The last year I was obliged to put out five tenants of Lord Cremorne's—two were bad characters, and the other three were put out because they were complained of by the rest of the tenants, who were respectable. I told them they must go, and I gave £8 to each of the five families to enable them to emigrate, and they went away quietly, and gave up without any trouble." Dig. Dev. Com. p. 467.   Robert O'Brien, Esq., Agent, Tenant, and Land Proprietor. "Has the consolidation of farms taken place; to what extent has it been carried; with what objects and by what means has it been accomplished, and with what consequences?—The system of consolidation is not carried on to any great extent in this district, and indeed bears no relative proportion to the subdivision of land, which is going on in spite of every effort of the landlords. However, here and there may be cases of clearing, and the desire to effect it exists, no doubt, in the minds of many who are deterred by unwillingness to enter into such a contest; others by humanity, knowing the wretched condition that the people so turned out would be in. The desire to effect it arises from the neglected state of the houses and land of such tenants; the frequent failure of their means to pay the rent, from bad tilling; the irregularity of their dealings and carelessness in fulfilling their engagements; the frequent disputes with landlords for cutting timber, burning land, wasting or selling turbary, dividing land amongst their families, letting strangers build cabins on their farms. The operation of the law, as it stands at present, frequently leads to a landlord turning out tenants, from whom, in the first instance, he would have been satisfied to recover his rent, which proceeds from the necessity of bringing an ejectment on the title where tenants-at-will are in arrear of rent, a course attended with considerable delay, and the tenant so evicted has no right to redeem."—Dig. Dev. Com. p. 466. Captain Thomas Bolton, Land Agent to Lord Stanley. "What is the more general size of the farms?—Under twenty acres decidedly. "Have you had the management of the estate for any length of time?—Since the year 1832. "In that time have you had occasion to make much alteration in the holdings?—I have altered in some cases the size of the farms, and in some cases I have removed tenants in order to do so.  "Have you had oceasion to remove many tenants?—Yes, when I first came; from one property. "What class were they?—The very small pauperized class of tenantry living near the bog, in the county of Limerick. They were removed, and the land set in large holdings. "What system did you pursue in removing these people?—I distrained them. They were very badly off, and in a miserable state; their mode of living was by stealing turf and selling it in Tipperary. They nominally had paid rent for the land, but they were greatly in arrear, and I gave them money to emigrate, and they went to America without any trouble. From about eighty acres of land there were 290 men, women, and children sent away. "Were those proceedings carried on without any disturbance?—Yes, it excited no ill-will. "Have the tenants you put in the farms continued there till this time?—Yes, they are there now. "Can you recollect the largest size of the holdings of any of those you removed?—I should think in one case as far as eight or nine acres; no holding was over ten, and many of them two, or three, or one."—Dig. Dev. Com. p. 467. William Hamilton, Esq., Land Agent. "When landlords have removed excessive population, they have generally offered the alternative of emigration on very favourable terms. This has been sometimes accepted, but more generally refused. Compensation is then given, either by money or free occupation for a certain time, or both, the tenant carrying away crops, materials of houses, &c. Where the arrangements are made with firmness, but at the same time judiciously and humanely, the majority of the persons affected acquiesce in their necessity, and are often benefited by them." Dig. Dev. Com. p. 467. Rev. Robert Sargeant, Land Agent. "Was it usual in general to make an allowance to assist  them in providing for themselves?—Undoubtedly, it was always. I never knew an instance in which they were not allowed something, either by arrears of rent or in some other mode."—Dig. Dev. Com. p. 469. E. L. Swan, Esq., Agent to Lord De Vesci. "Has there been any consolidation of farms upon the property with which you are connected?—Yes, and subletting in some instances has been carried on to a ruinous extent, contrary to his lordship's wishes, by tenants holding under old leases, who, taking advantage of the well-known benevolence of his lordship, and the consequent high value set upon being found on the land at the expiration of the lease, have realized large profit rents by subdividing their farms; to prevent which, when a case of the kind comes to my knowledge, I cause the intruder to be noticed, that he will have no claim on his lordship at the fall of the lease; and to consolidate such farms, his lordship either sends the occupier to America, or provides him with the means of procuring another residence." Dig. Dev. Com. p. 469. William Hamilton , Esq., Land Agent. "It is a change, however, to be made with much care and tenderness, and with every possible attention to the feelings of the persons to be removed, but which, when accomplished, is attended with beneficial effects, upon production, employment of labour, and security of rent."—Dig. Dev. Com. p. 470. Robert D'Arcy, Esq., Land Agent to the Marquess of Clanricarde. "When those farms in partnership fall out of lease, we send the surveyor, Mr. Cooper, whom we pay by the year for regulating Lord Clanriearde's estate, he surveys the land, and we find there is generally double or treble the people upon the townland than can live upon it; and the direction he has got is, to lay it out in fifteen or twenty acres; and then the great  difficulty arises, when that is done, 'What is to be done with the tenants?' * * * "About a mile from the town there were about twelve persons to be disposed of. I saw the impossibility of satisfying them, and I proposed that they should cast lots for the land. They agreed to cast lots, upon condition that each man going out was to get £20, his lordship paying half, and the tenant who got the land paying the other. That was settled, and they got their money, and a good many went to America. * * * The whole of the expense of those tenants for those two years was £551. 13s 3d.' " John Duke, Esq., M.D. "Has the consolidation of farms been carried on to any extent in this district ? * * *—There has been an anxiety, on the part of the landlords, latterly to do so. They are doing it, where they can do it peaceably, to the satisfaction of the out-going tenant." D. H. Kelly, Esq., Land Proprietor, Magistrate, and D.L. "Has there been any consolidation of farms in the district? I am doing it in every way I can. I am getting the tenants wherever I can to buy adjoining land when it is vacant; but if you refer to consolidation by the ejectment of whole villages, in order to make large farms, there is nothing of the sort; but where there is a beggarman, and he is inclined to go away, or one man is inclined to buy of another, I have made both into one holding, and have always assisted the party by lending him money, and in every way I could." "To what size have you thought it desirable to bring the farms? — If I could I should not like to have any thing under twenty acres; but I am content with ten, and put up with six."—Dig. Dev. Com, p. 471. Captain K. Lloyd, Land Proprietor, Agent, and Magistrate. "Has there been any consolidation of farms, and to what extent, in the district?—Yes, it is very generally practised now. "To what extent, and with what objects?—To introduce a better class of tenantry, and also to benefit the proprietor who finds, if he can increase the size of his farm, it benefits the land. "To what sized farms has it gone?—I think they vary from fifteen to twenty acres and thirty acres—that seems to be the favourite size, I think, for persons removed above the mere peasant. "Do you mean to say, in many instances, large numbers of people have been dispossessed with a view to increasing the size of farms?—No, by no means; but I say that practice is generally introduced, and is recognized throughout the country, and where it can be done without oppression, it is generally practised; and the persons going out have been generally assisted to go to America, or otherwise provide for themselves; it only anticipates the day when they must go—for it is manifest that sooner or later they must go; the longer you keep them the worse is their condition."—Dig. Dev. Com. p. 472. Lord George Hill, Land Proprietor. "The estate was mapped and surveyed at very considerable expense, and the farms remodelled, so that each tenant has his land together in one place (with few exceptions), instead of being as formerly in several detached places. This was effected with much difficulty, the people themselves having the greatest antipathy to any change. In doing this, each man's case was attentively considered, so that no injury or loss was incurred by any. In consequence of this new state of affairs the tenants were obliged to shift their houses, which was easily accomplished, as the custom of the country is, on those occasions, to hire a fiddler, who, taking up his position upon the intended site, scrapes away whilst the neighbours are busy bringing stones from all quarters, and when a sufficient quantity has been collected, the evening is finished by a dance."—Ib. p. 455.
* ↑   TABLE showing the increase of Holdings in Ireland between fifteen and thirty acres from 1841 to 1861. Leinster. Munster. Ulster. Connaught. Ireland. 1841 20,688 27,611 25,219 5,824 79,342 1861 24,226 26,805 57,660 32,560 141,251 Increase. 3,538 — 806 32,441 26,736 61,909 Leinster 3,538 being an increase of 17·1 percent. Munster —806 a decrease of 2·9 " Ulster 32,441 an increase of 128·6 " Connaught 26,736 " 459·1 " 62,715—806 806 Ireland 61,909 " 78· " TABLE showing the increase of Holdings in Ireland above Thirty acres from 1841 to 1861. Leinster. Munster. Ulster. Connaught. Ireland. 1841 17,943 16,665 9,655 4,362 48,635 1861 39,384 55,833 39,464 23,152 157,833 Increase 21,441 39,168 29,799 18,800 109,208 Leinster 21,441, being an increase of 119.5 percent. Munster 39,168 " 235· Ulster 29,809 " 308·7 Connaught 18,790 " 430·8 109,208 " 224·6
* ↑ The reduction in the number of holdings between half an acre and six acres, as compared with the reduction in the number of holdings between six and fifteen acres, is as 314 + x to 76 — x.
* ↑ This is sufficiently established by the fact of something like 100,000 holdings of this description having disappeared in Ulster alone.
* ↑  It is curious to contrast the view Mr. Mill seems to take of the extinction of very small tenancies, with the language of those who hold up the landlords of Ireland to obloquy for having promoted within very moderate limits, and as a general rule, by the most legitimate and humane means tho very improvement he desiderates. "The principal change in the situation consists in the great diminution, holding out a hope of the entire extinction, of cottier tenure. The enormous decrease in the number of small holdings, and increase in those of a medium size, attested by the statistical returns, sufficiently proves the general fact, and all testimonies show that the tendency still continues." Mill's Polit. Economy, p. 413, Vol. I.
* ↑ It has been objected that inasmuch as Ireland is an agricultural country, the landlords are responsible for the condition of the whole population, whether immediately connected with the land or not. Such a doctrine is scarcely reasonable; — the general condition of a people must depend upon their industry, enterprise, intelligence, and forethought. Though a landlord may do something to inculcate the foregoing qualities, his best efforts too frequently produce disheartening results even amongst those with whom he is immediately connected; but as I shall have occasion to show, the almost universal practice of granting leases for a long term of years, deprived most of the landlords of all control over their tenantry; it is unjust therefore to hold them solely responsible for the unhealthy social system which came to exist on their own estates: to credit them with the misfortunes of the non-agricultural population would be absurd.
* ↑ During the last twenty years the Catholic population of Belfast, Derry, and the manufacturing towns of Ulster, has increased nearly one-third. The influx, of course, having proceeded from the southern and western parts of the island.
* ↑ Among a number of Irish navvies, working in London, whom I have questioned, I never found one who had either held land, or been forced to leave his country against his will. Nearly all used the same expression in accounting for their departure from home, "it was the potato failure drove us away." All pretty nearly named 6d a-day as the rate of wages they were receiving in their native place, and none now are getting less than 4s a-day in England.
* ↑ For every two holdings which have disappeared from the category of those below 5 acres or below 15 acres, a new one has been added to the class of farms of 15 acres and upwards.
* ↑  I am happy to find that exactly the same proportion as that noted above has been arrived at by a writer hi the Home and Foreign Review, with whose calculations I was unacquainted at the time I published my own conclusions. "These figures seem to prove very clearly that the largest proportion of those whose emigration can be even indirectly traced to their having, either voluntarily or under compulsion, given up their land in Ireland is, roughly speaking, as one to four. But if we leave statistics aside for the moment, and found our observations on the personal experience of those well acquainted with the emigration movement, we shall find that the great majority of emigrants who leave Ireland for America, or for the manufacturing districts of England or Scotland, consists of unmarried men and women—the junior members of small farmers' and cottiers' families, who are unable to find remunerative employment at home, and set out to seek it in other countries." H. & F. Review, Ap. 1864, p. 343.
* ↑  "There is one point in connection with the emigration movement which should be noticed, in order to dispel a very erroneous impression which the tone of certain journals has done much to create, viz. that there is a feeling of despair amongst the agricultural class in Ireland, and that the farmers have given up, or are giving up, their land, to go to America. Speaking from trustworthy information derived from various parts of Ireland, we must deny this to be the case; and we very much doubt if in the whole of Ireland twenty instances could be found where the tenant of either a large or a small farm, who has paid his last half-year's rent and is able to pay the next, has voluntarily resigned his land in order to emigrate. "Statistics clearly show that, however the number of inhabitants may have diminished in Ireland within the last seventeen years, the agricultural population is still much in excess of the agricultural population of either England or Scotland; [Irish Emigration considered, by M. J. Barry, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, pp. 9—11.] if and bearing this in mind, we cannot avoid the painful conclusion that, if the people of Ireland be destined to remain as exclusively as now dependent on the land for their support, there is no reasonable expectation of any rapid decrease, much less of a cessation, of the emigration." [The average annual preponderance of births over deaths in Ireland is about 60,000; so that, in the absence of any other disturbing causes, a yearly emigration to nearly that extent would not have the effect of making the population less than it now is.] Home and Foreign Review, Ap. 1864, p. 344.
* ↑  Reduction of Holdings between 1 and 15 acres, from 1841 to 1861; 1841. 1861. Decrease. Leinster . 96,149 . 53,363 . 42,786 Munster . 119,610 . 35,695 . 83,915 Ulster . 201,820 . 110,511 . 91,309 Connaught . 145,656 . 69,831 . 75,825 For the particulars of the entire period from 1841 to 1865, see Appendix.
* ↑  Throughout the whole of this discussion I have carefully abstained from drawing any invidious distinction between the people of the North and South of Ireland, nor do I now wish to do more than hint at a consideration, which, in drawing a comparison between Ulster and Munster, it would be as undesirable to omit altogether, as it would be to press unduly, viz.:—that a more indefatigable spirit of continuous and persistent industry seems to pervade the inhabitants of the North that can, with perfect impartiality, be attributed to those of the South. This circumstance, I imagine, will hardly be disputed, though it may fairly be argued, that when controlled and disciplined by necessity, the labourer of the South will work perhaps harder and quite as willingly as any one in the world. "What he seems to lack is a spontaneous inclination to unremitting and dogged exertion (which is certainly a characteristic of the Ulster population), perhaps to be accounted for by the natural liveliness of his disposition, and even the superiority of some of his intellectual faculties. Nor should the influence of the unhappy past be left out of consideration, in any estimate of the national character.
* ↑ In accounting for the stability of the small Ulster tenant, I must not forget to mention a fact which undoubtedly exercised a very perceptible influence on his destiny, viz.: the prosperity of the sewed-muslin trade, which, though now in abeyance, was maintained for several years subsequent to the potato failure. In almost every farmer's cottage, the daughters of the house busied themselves with this industry. A girl of sixteen could earn from tenpence to a shilling a day,—and the united exertions of the female members of the family amounted to a considerable sum at the end of the week. This circumstance, together with the assistance which a large proportion of the smaller farmers (particularly in Armagh and Antrim) derived from hand-loom weaving, enabled many to hold their ground who otherwise would have been swept away, while the subsequent extension of the flax cultivation (which, in some respects, is very suitable to small farms, and was greatly stimulated by the prosperity of the linen trade) still further invigorated their prosperity.
* ↑   Holdings Holdings Decrease. Decrease in 1841. in 1861. per cent. Leinster . 134,780 116,973 17,807 13.2 Munster . 163,886 118,333 45,553 27.8 Ulster . . 236,697 207,635 20,059 12.2 Connaught . 155,812 125,543 30,299 19.4
* ↑ See Appendix, p. 85.
* ↑   per cent. Ratio of Emigrants from Leinster 1851 to 1865 308,609 ————————————————— = ———— = 21.1 To Population of Leinster in 1861 1,457,635 Ratio of Emigrants from Connaught 1851 to 1865 197,892 ————————————————— = ———— = 21.4 To Population of Connaught in 1861 913,135 Ratio of Emigrants from Ulster 1851 to 1865 436,354 ————————————————— = ———— = 22.8 To Population of Ulster in 1861 1,914,236 Ratio of Emigrants from Munster 1851 to 1865 626,958 ————————————————— = ———— = 41.4 To Population of Munster in 1861 1,513,558
* ↑ Note: In these instances the Sheriffs' returns were imperfect, and the figures have been supplied by assuming that the number of evictions executed equalled the entire notices served on the Relieving Officers.
* ↑ This is given in the returns as the 'County of Clonmel,' and it is presumed that Tipperary was meant.
* ↑ It will be seen that that this total includes all the Urban evictions, with the exception of those for Dublin and four other towns.
* ↑ Including 403 seamen and others at sea on census night.
* ↑ It is also to be noted, with respect to the foregoing table, that not only have the number of evictions in Ulster been absolutely greater than those in the other provinces, but that the percentage of evictions to holdings was higher in Ulster than in two out of the other three provinces.
* ↑  Perhaps no better proof can be given of the general ignorance prevailing throughout Ireland on the subject of evictions than the avidity with which the returns for the notices of ejectment, commonly called Lord Belmore's returns, were seized upon by almost every newspaper in Ireland, as the basis on which to calculate the number of persons "annually driven forth to perish" by their cruel landlords. Taking it for granted that a notice of ejectment and an eviction were identical circumstances, the total number of  notices were immediately multiplied by five and the product, amounting to 100,000 per annum, was gravely submitted to the public as the figure which represented the exact number of victims to landlord oppression. The slightest acquaintance with agricultural affairs would render such mistakes impossible, and the bona fides with which they are committed only shows how little qualified to offer an opinion are many of those who profess to instruct the conscience of the nation. From a Correspondent of the Daily News, Jan. 1867. "The eviction returns of Dr. Hancock are employed, but these have been superseded by the more recent returns of Lord Belmore, which show that within the last six years more than 40,000 occupiers, amounting with their families to 200,000 persons, have been evicted. But it should be remembered that these returns are to the utmost degree imperfect: for no evictions could have been included in them, but such as were registered and authorized by the Courts of Law, and it is a well-known fact that ten-fold more (i.e. 2,000,000) are dispossessed—ten-fold more evictions (i.e. 400,000) are effected by a mere " notice to quit" of which there is no public register and can be no returns, than by process of ejectment, of which returns might be procured. Hence these returns must be most imperfect and cannot form a just formation for any reliable conclusion." From a Correspondent of the Freeman's Journal, Jan. 1867. "In view of the social charges since 1828-38, assuming that there were only two defendants—an average obviously too low—in each of Lord Belmore's ejectments, the 35,463 cases represent 70,926 holdings and at the usual Irish rate of 5 persons to each family, these indicate 709,260 human beings actually or liable to have been dispossessed in the six years in question!" The true relation which a service of ejectment and an eviction bear to one another, as well as the kind of occasion on which  this step is taken, is sufficiently recorded in the subjoined extracts from the Digest of the Devon Commission. "A very small proportion of the ejectments brought are carried out to the eviction of the tenants, the action being generally compromised on the payment of the rent arrear." Dig. Dev. Com. p. 830. "It likewise appears that the ejectment process is rarely carried to extremities, as compared with the numerous cases in which the first steps are taken, for the purpose of enforcing payment of rent; but that the service of the ejectment process in the great majority of instances, produces the desired settlement of the rent, without coming to a decree."—Ibid. p. 805. Philip Beade, Esq. land proprietor. "What is the usual mode of recovering rent against defaulting tenantry?—Distraining. "Is that increasing?—It is diminishing. I perfectly remember when no tenant paid his rent without being distrained, no matter how rich he was, otherwise it would not have been handsome conduct towards his neighbours. I perfectly recollect that."—Ibid. p. 807.
* ↑   Increase in 1851. 1862. 11 years. Total Holdings . . 608,066 . . 609,385 . . 1,319
* ↑ See Appendix, p. 86.
* ↑ Return showing the number of Irish Farmers who have  emigrated during the years 1865 and 1866, as far as can be ascertained from the Passenger Lists furnished by the Custom House authorities. Year. Port of Departure. United States. British North America Australasia. All other places. Total. 1865 Liverpool 1,674 176 93 4 1,947 London . 7 . . 106 . . 113 Plymouth . . . . 17 . . 17 Glasgow . 211 32 . . . . 243 Cork 14 . . . . . . 14 Londonderry . 169 142 . . . . 311 All other Ports . . 38 . . 1 39 Total 2,075 388 216 5 2,684 1866 Liverpool 1,847 122 55 37 2,061 London . . . . . 48 20 68 Plymouth . . . . 23 . . 23 Glasgow . 111 2 . . . . 113 Cork 4 . . . . . . 4 Londonderry . 157 85 . . . . 242 All other Ports . . . . 3 . . 3 Total 2,119 209 129 57 2,514 Government Emigration Board, 8, Park Street, Westminster, 15th February, 1867. 101,497 Ratio of Irish occupiers to Irish Emigrants in 1865 = ———— = 2.6 p.c 2684 100,602 " 1866 = ———— = 2.5 p.c 2514 The number of emigrants in 1866 is deduced from the average of the last five years.
* ↑ See Appendix, p. 88.
* ↑  Total number of Farmers who have emigrated from the United Kingdom in 1864 .... 7245 Total number whom the Commissioners have classed as Gentlemen, Professional Men, Merchants, &c. . 5842