Q.  What were your personal relations with the tenants when you were at Inchiquin?

A.  Always most friendly; and even the other day when I was there, while none of them would speak to me when they were all together, those I met individually touched their hats, and were as civil as ever.  I believe they would all be thankful to have things as they were, and I have never refused to meet and treat with them on fair individual terms.

In November 1885 my offer of an abatement of 15 per cent. being refused, a few tenants, I believe, clubbed their rents, and for the sake of peace I then offered 20 per cent., which they accepted and paid.  In October 1886 I hoped to prevent trouble by making the same offer of 20 per cent. abatement on non-judicial and 10 per cent. on judicial rents.  One man took the latter abatement and paid.  Then another tenant demanded 40 per cent.  My agent said he would give them time, and also take money on account, the effect of which would be to put me out of court, and prevent my getting an order of ejectment if I wanted to for the balance.  I thought this fair, and approved it, but I refused to make a 40 per cent. all-round abatement, authorising my agent, however, to make what abatements he liked in special cases.  My words were, “I don’t limit you on the amount of abatement you give, or as to the number of tenants you may choose so to treat.”  If this was not a fair free hand, what would be?  My agent afterwards told me he had no chance to make this known.  The fact is they meant to force the Plan on the tenants and me, and to prevent any settlement but a “victory for the League!”

In my original notes of my conversation with Father Keller at Youghal, I found the name of one tenant whom he introduced to me, and who certainly told me that his holdings amounted to some L300 a year, and that they had been in his family for “two hundred years,” set down as Doyle—­I so printed it with the statements made.  But Father Keller, to whom I submitted my proofs, and who was so good as to revise them, struck out the name of Doyle, and inserted that of Loughlin, putting the rental down at L94 (vol. ii. p. 71).  Of course I accept this correction.  But on my mentioning the matter to Mr. Ponsonby by letter, he replies to me (July 27th) as follows:—­

“Maurice Doyle is a son of Richard Doyle, who died in 1876, leaving his widow to carry on his farm of 74 acres 1 rood, in the townland of Ballykitty, which he held in 1858 at a rental of L50, 11s.  In 1868 this was reduced to L48, 11s.  In September 1871 he took in addition a farm of 159 acres 2 roods at L130, in Burgen and Ballykitty.  He afterwards got a lease for thirty-one years of this larger farm, with a portion of his earlier holding, for L155.  This left him to pay L21, 11s. for the residue of the earlier holding as in 1858.  But at his request, in 1876, the year of his death, I reduced this to L17.

“In March 1879, by the death of