g
confiscation was, that the late Lord Digby, cousin to the present, had
only a life interest in the Irish estate, and therefore, the leases
were all illegal and worthless. Accordingly the new lord commenced
proceedings to evict the whole of the tenantry for non-title. They
were astounded. They held meetings; they deliberated; they appealed to
the landlord; they appealed to the executors of the late peer, who
had large estates in England, and died worth a million sterling in
the funds, all of which he willed away from the heir of his title and
Irish estates. Says Mr. Trench:--

'It may readily be supposed that circumstances so peculiar as these
created considerable anxiety in the district. The tenantry, _many_ of
them large and respectable land-holders, now learned, for the first
time, that their leases were good for nothing in law. They had been
duly 'signed, sealed, and delivered' to them under a full belief on
their part that the contract was not only just and honourable, but
also perfectly legal; and their feelings may be imagined when they
found that they were suddenly threatened with a total loss of the
property which they had always looked upon as secure.'[1]

[Footnote 1: 'Realities of Irish Life,' p.314.]

Pending the ejectment proceedings, they were knocked about from post
to pillar, without getting any satisfaction. The landlord referred
them to the executors, although he knew well they had no legal claim
on them whatever, and that to legal claims only could they pay any
attention. The executors again referred them to their landlord, who
was determined to break the leases, come what would. Now, if the Irish
law regulating the relations of landlord and tenant were based upon
justice and equity, the wrong done by the late earl, if any, was a
wrong for which the tenants should in no way be held responsible. The
wrong was done to the heir-at-law. To him, and not to the tenants,
compensation should have been made by the executors. And after all, it
was really to him that the money was advanced to buy up the leases,
in order to save him from assassination, for the tenants had no legal
claim upon them.

The natural, proper, and honest course, then, for the landlord, was to
have kept the 30,600 l. as compensation to himself for the mistake
of his predecessor, and to let the leases stand. If he considered
the peace of the country, if he wished to inspire in the minds of
the people respect for the rights of proper