\ 254 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE EV E M'Gaver rather poor ; they generally supported themselves in the manufactures we have " ' ' in Ireland, spinning wool and making cloth, and by bringing it to market. i June 1838. 12603. How many cases do you depose to having been treated in the way you describe by Lord Lorton; in how many cases do you state Lord Lorton to have unfairly pressed those tenants of his for arrears of rent ?— That very year alone they cleared three. 12604. Do you mean to say there was more than one instance in which Lord Lorton unfairly pressed his tenants to pay up their arrears of rent ?— I do not know of any other instance in that parish. 12605. Mr. Lefroy ?\ You say in that instance they cleared the estate ?— Yes; if they did not clear of course the ejectments would go. 12606. Mr. Hogg.] When did Lord Lorton buy that estate?— I cannot say, it was before I went to the parish. 12607. About what time ?— I cannot say. 12608. Was there a heavy arrear of rent due when he purchased it?— I can- not say; 1 never was acquainted with the parish until I was appointed to it in 182/." 12609. Then, at the period you mention, there was an arrear generally through that part of Lord Lorton's estate of three half years ?— Yes, and some told me there was nearly two years rent in arrear. 12610. Lord Lorton throughout that property generally required them to pay up those arrears of rent ?— Yes ; all that were then served with ejectments had to clear out. 12611. Did he generally, throughout that portion of liis property, require the payment up of the rent, according to the custom of the country, which was within one half year ?— I believe he did. 12612. And that was general?— Yes. 12613. Mr. Milnes Gaskell.] Do I understand you that the parties ejected upon Lady Ross's estate were wealthy ?— Yes, there were a great number of them comfortable farmers. 12614. But richer, you said, than the others ?— Yes, richer than the gene- rality of the men of the country. 12615. How did you ascertain that fact?— I know them personally. 12616. But you did not know their successors personally ?— Yes, I did; I was then in the parish of Cashel. One of them came from the parish of Carrick Edmund, where I reside, and I was shown a little house he lived in, and a small spot of land he had, that was upon Mr. ' s property, and from the cultivation of the land, and the appearance of the house, there was no appearance of his being a good farmer. 12617. The persons succeeding were all Protestants ?— Yes. 12618. And you ascertained that those Protestants were less comfortable and less wealthy than the former occupants ?— Yes; another of the persons coming in was in the police before he went there. 12619. Did you ascertain that from the parties coming in, or from the parties going out ?— I saw the houses myself; I was living there some time after their going to reside upon the spot. 12620. Mr. Hogg.'] Those that went out were holding under middle- men ? — Yes. 12621. What was the general quantity of land they had?— Fifteen acres, or sixteen acres some; others had ten acres, others seven acres, others four and five, and so on. 12622. And some less ?— Yes. 12623. What was the general quantity of land which the new men who came in had ?— I gave it in my evidence the other day ; it was only belief, because I could not ascertain the fact accurately. Montford got 40 acres; and, as far as I consider, the others got about 20. 12624. Then, generally speaking, the men introduced had greatlv larger hold- ings than those who were ejected ?— Yes. 12625. Whatever the motives of Lady Ross or her agents may have been, the fact is, that the change introduced farmers with larger holdings"?— Yes, they got larger holdings. 12626. Direct from the landlord?— Yes. 12627. To the extinction of middle- men and small holdings ?— Yes. 12628. Mr;