in
order that he might pay his rent out of the proceeds. The man owed L15
to the Clanricarde property. Mr. Crawford did not particularly want to
buy his beasts, but eventually agreed to do so, and gave him L50 for
them. The man went off with the money, but he never paid the rent! Mr.
Crawford discovering this called him to account, and refused to grant
him some further favour which he asked. The result is that the
"distressed tenant" now cuts Mr. Crawford when he meets him, and is the
prosperous owner of quite a small herd of cattle.

Mr. Crawford's opinion of the mischief done by the methods and spirit of
the National League in this place is quite in accord with the opinions
of the Bishop-Coadjutor. Power without responsibility, which made the
Caeesars madmen, easily turns the heads of village tyrants, and there is
something positively grotesque in the excesses of this subterranean
"Home Rule." Mr. Crawford told me of a case here, in which a tenant
farmer, whom he named, came to him in great wrath, not unmingled with
terror, to say that the League had ordered him, on pain of being
boycotted, to give up his holding to the heirs of a woman from whom,
twenty years ago, he had bought, for L100 in cash, the tenant-right of
her deceased husband! There was no question of refunding the L100. He
was merely to consider himself a "land-grabber," and evict himself for
the benefit of those heirs who had never done a stroke of work on the
property for twenty years, and who had no shadow of a legal or moral
claim on it, except that the oldest of them was an active member of the
local League!

Nor was this unique.

In another case, the children of a tenant, who died forty years ago,
came forward and called upon the League to boycott an old man who had
been in possession of the holding during nearly half a century. In a
third case, a tenant-farmer, some ten years ago, had in his employ as
herd a man who fell ill and died. He put into the vacant place an
honest, capable young fellow, who still holds it, and has faithfully and
efficiently served him. Only the other day this tenant-farmer was warned
by the League to expect trouble, unless he dismissed this herd, and put
into his place the son, now grown to man's estate, of the herd who died
ten years ago!

It is amusing, if not instructive, to find the hereditary principle,
just now threatened in its application to the British Senate, cropping
out afresh as an element in the regener