Patrick Arkins was charged with knocking down walls on the farm of Mrs. Fitzpatrick in order to compel her to give up the farm.  Inspector Davis gave evidence that from January 1910 to that date there were 104 serious outrages in his district.  In 42 firearms were used, 27 were malicious injuries, 32 were threatening notices, 1 case of bomb explosion outside a house, 1 robbery of arms, and 1 attempted robbery.  A sum of L268 had been awarded as compensation for malicious injury and there were claims for L75 pending for malicious injuries committed during the week ended 11th inst.  There were two persons under constant police protection, and 16 receiving protection by patrol.  Head Constable Mulligan said that Mrs. Fitzpatrick was under police protection.  Since February 11th, 1912, there had been 12 outrages in the district, Mrs. Fitzpatrick was under almost constant police protection.  Acting Sergeant Beegan deposed that there had been 12 outrages on the Fitzpatrick family during the last four years; these included driving cattle off the lands, threatening notices, firing shots at the house, knocking down walls, spiking meadows; the new roof of a hay barn was perforated with bullets, and at Kiltonaghty Chapel there were notices threatening death to anyone who would work for Mrs. Fitzpatrick.  Timothy Fitzpatrick gave similar evidence as to the outrages, and said that his father had taken the farm twenty-one years ago, and had paid the son of the former tenant L40 for his goodwill.

(I may add that Arkins was committed for trial, convicted at the Assizes and sentenced to seven years penal servitude; and was released by Mr. Birrell a few weeks afterwards.)

In another Clare case, in February of the present year, the resident Magistrate said as follows:—­

“It is a mistake to say that these outrages are arising out of disputes between landlord and tenant; nine out of ten arise out of petty disputes about land.  What is the use of having new land laws?  A case occurred not long ago in this county of a man who had bought some land twenty years ago, and paid down hard cash to the outgoing tenant.  The man died, and left a widow and children on the land for fourteen years.  But in 1908 a man who had some ulterior object got the man who had sold the farm to send in a claim under the Evicted Tenant’s Act, which was rejected.  That was what the advisers of the man wanted—­they only wanted a pretext for moonlighting and other disgraceful outrages, and the woman was kept in a hell for four years.  A man was caught at last and convicted, and one would think that this was a subject for rejoicing for all right-minded men in the county.  But what was the result?  A perfect tornado of letters was printed, and resolutions and speeches appeared in the public press, condemning this conviction of a moonlighter in Clare as an outrage against justice.”

The Roman Catholic Bishop of Killaloe, in a sermon preached in December 1912, referring to County Clare said:—­