behaved in Ireland, the Americans “would pelt them not only with dynamite, but with the lightnings of Heaven and the fires of hell, till every British bull-dog, whelp, and cur would be pulverised and made top-dressing for the soil.”  Canon Keller afterwards expressed disapproval of this speech of Hayes, and this coming to the knowledge of Hayes in America, Hayes denounced Keller for not daring to do this at the time in his presence.  Since then Canon Keller has been much more violent in tone.

Q.  I don’t want to carry you through a long examination, Mr. Ponsonby, but I see typical cases here, about which I should like to ask a question or two.  Here, is Callaghan Flavin, for instance, described by Canon Keller as one of eight tenants who “had to retreat before the crowbar brigade,” and who “deserved a better fate.”  Canon Keller says he is assured by a competent judge that Flavin’s improvements, “full value for L341, 10s.,” are now “the landlord’s property.”  What are the facts about Mr. Flavin?

A.  Mr. Flavin’s farm was held by his cousin, Ellen Flavin of Gilmore, who, on the 7th of February 1872, surrendered it to the landlord on receiving from me a sum of L172, 10s. 6d.  I obtained a charging order under section 27 of the Land Act, entitling me to an annuity of L8, 12s. 6d. for thirty-five years from July 3, 1872.  It was let to Callaghan Flavin in preference to other applicants, July 3, 1872; and in 1873, at his request, I obtained a loan from the Board of Works for the thorough draining of a portion of the farm.  Thirteen acres were drained at a cost of L84, 6s. 3d., for which the tenant promised to pay 5 per cent. interest, which I eventually forgave him.  There was no house on the farm.  He took it without one, and I did not want one there.  He built a house himself without consulting my agent, and then wanted me to make him an allowance for it.  I told him he had thirty-one years to enjoy it in, and must be content with that.  About the same time he took another farm of mine at a rent of L35.  Since I came into my property in 1868 I have laid out upon it in drainage, buildings, and planting—­here are the accounts, which you may look at—­over L15,000, including about L8000 of loans from the Board of Works.  In the drainage the tenants got work for which they were paid.  I gave them slates for the buildings, with timber and stone from the estate, and they supplied the labour.  There is no case in which the outlays for improvements came from the tenants—­not a single one.  I repeat it, Canon Keller’s tract is a tissue of fictions.

What nonsense it is to talk about the “traditional rack-renting” of a property held by the Ponsonbys for two hundred years, the tenants on which could welcome me when I came into it with the language of the address you have here seen!

I never evicted tenants for less than three years’ arrears, till what Canon Keller calls the “crowbar brigade,” by which he means the officers of the law, had to be put into action to meet the “Plan of Campaign” in May last.  I did not proceed against the tenants because they could not pay.  I selected the tenants who could pay, and who were led, or, I believe in most cases, “coerced,” into refusing to pay by agitators with Mr. Lane, M.P., to inspire them, and Canon Keller, P.P., to glorify them in a tract.