what they have expended, they are not more than paid for their
expenditure.' It transpired in the course of the examination that a
man who had purchased tenant-right, and paid a fine of 10 l. an acre
on getting a lease, would have to pay a similar fine over again when
getting the lease renewed. The result of these heavy advances was that
the middle-class farmers lived in constant pecuniary difficulties.
They were obliged to borrow money at six per cent. to pay the rent,
but they borrowed it under circumstances which made it nearly 40 per
cent., for it was lent by dealers in oatmeal and other things, from
whom they were obliged to purchase large quantities of goods at such a
high rate that they sold them again at a sacrifice of 33 per cent.

Mr. Joshua Lamb, another witness, stated that the effect of the fining
system had been to draw away a great deal of the accumulated capital
out of the hands of the tenantry, as well as their anticipated savings
for years to come, by which the carrying out of improved methods of
agriculture was prevented. Still, the existence of a lease for 31
years doubled the value of the tenant-right. This witness made a
remarkable statement. With respect to this custom he said: The 'effect
of this arrangement, when duly observed, is to prevent all disputes,
quarrels, burnings, and destruction of property, so common in those
parts of Ireland where this practice does not prevail. Indeed, so
fully are farmers aware of this, that very few, except the most
reckless, would venture on taking a farm without obtaining the
outgoing tenant's "good-will." Such a proceeding as taking land
"over a man's head," as it is termed, is regarded here as not merely
dishonourable, but as little better than robbery, and as such held
in the greatest detestation.' He added that the justice of this
arrangement was obvious--'because all the buildings, planting, and
other improvements, being entirely at the tenant's expense, he has a