The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1846-04-07 00:00:00

EJECTION OF TENANTRY.

An affecting tale of an alleged wholesale eviction of
" 270 poor, industrious, and honest people" from the
estate of Mr. Gerard, in the county of Galway, has ap-
peared in the " Liberal" journals of Ireland, from which
one would be led to believe that a more hard-hearted and
griping landlord never existed—one. in fact, who, from an
avarinious disposition, would, far the sake of fattening
bullocks and pecketting the proceeds, leave the peasantry
under him to die of sheer starvation. The present case
illustrates the adage, that " one story is good till another
is told ;" and Mr. Gerard has fully vindicated himself
from the foul aspersions cast upon his character as a land-
owner and a man, by furnishing a detail of the whole pro-
ceedings. We have but room to give the heads of this
statement, which, however, is sufficiently clear, and bears
the stamp of truth. The estate called Ballinlass, contains
about 300 acres of prime upland land and 50 of moor. In
1827 Mr. Gerard acceded to a proposal from 30 persons
to let it at 30s. an acre, and nothing for the bog. The
rent was paid by one of tbem—:he principal up to March,
1842. The original tenants, however, sub-let nearly the
whole to about 40 miserable persons at £2, £2 10s., and
even £3. Mr. G. endeavoured to prevent this, and never
received rents from the under tenants. In September,
1842, and subsequently, all the original tenants refused to
pay a farthing, and he was forced. in 1844, to bring an
action to eject them. A defence was set up. but he.ob-
tained a verdict—the rent then due being £7OB. A ques-
tion of law arose as to the agreement, and the action was
again tried in 1844, with the same result, but not a far-
thing of rent was paid, though the land was cropped, and
the money went partly in litigation, and the residue into
the defendants' pockets. In September, 1845, Mr. G.
proposed to them to forgive all arrears of rent (then up-
wards of £1000) and allow them to take away the crops
(worth £300), and remain in their houses till February
last, if they would then vacate. They agreed, and signed
a consent to that effect. In February he offered men,
horses, and carts at his own expense, to remove their pro-
visions, manure, furniture, and everything belonging to
them. Few of them, however, would remove, and it was
not till six weeks after the time agreed upon that he was
forced to take possession through the sheriff. Even the
timber of the houses was carefully taken down and re-
moved for them. Two sick families were not then removed
and a doctor was paid by him to attend them. A statement
made that a child was killed by the officers was false, and
the people were, by his orders, treated with the greatest
kindness and consideration, for which many of them had
thanked him ; and to four widows dispossessed, he gave
£4 each. The rent then due out of the land was £1643,
besides poor rates, county rates, and heavy legal expenses.
Mr. Gerard equally contradicts a statement that he had
wrongfully dispossessed some tenants on his estate of
Newbridge. The land was let on a lease for the lives of
three persons, all of whom were dead ; but another life
was set up in lieu of the last survivor, though that person
was not born at the time the lease was granted. The
tenants took vexatious defence, putting Mr. G. to great
expense, but made no defence on the trial, which was, of
course, given against them. Mr. G. thus concludes :
" I could, in like manner. satisfy any dispassionate person
that my conduct as proprietor of that property was always
marked by a just and kind feeling to those of my tenants
who deserved favour at my hands by their good conduct
and industry. I have carried on extensive works, given
great employment, and much assistance at all times in
clothing and food orimv estate." What becomes, now,
of the affecting tale ? We were told that the tenants were
not only willing and ready to pay all rent and arrears, but
the full amount due was actually tendered to the agent of
the estate, to the sheriff, and finally to the police who
attended at the execution of the habere; but nothing
would do the landlord but a level plain whereon that con-
tented village stood, for the purpose of adding another
piece of meadow land to his wide grazing farm. The
peasantry were to be starved—annihilated—that another
herd of bullocks might be fattened for the market. This
is the substance of the liberal version of the proceedings
ahopted on the part of the landlord. We have now had a
complete refutati( n of all these falsehoods.