A still more flagrant case of lease-breaking occurred some years ago in the county of Galway.  Dr. Hancock has put the facts of this case before the Government in his recent report:—­

’The plaintiff was the Rev. Dr. O’Fay, parish priest of Craughwell, in the county of Galway, and the defendant the landlord on whose estate the priest resided.  About ten years ago the priest was induced to take a farm that had been held by a former parish priest; the previous proprietor, the father of the defendant, promising a lease for three lives, or thirty-one years.  After the priest entered into possession the landlord ascertained that he could not fulfil his promise.

’As he did not possess such a power under the terms of the estate settlement, he offered, instead, a lease for the priest’s own life, and 20 l. to aid in building a house.  The priest continued in possession of the farm, and paid the rent agreed on, thus, as he alleged, accepting the arrangement proposed.  He was on excellent terms with the landlord, and expended 70 l. in permanent improvements, and did not ask for the 20 l. which the landlord had promised.  In 1854 the landlord died, and his son, the defendant, succeeded to the property.  He gave notice to all his yearly tenants of an intention to raise their rents.  The priest claimed to have a promise of a lease, and the agent of the property, during the landlord’s absence abroad, admitted this claim, and did not raise the rent.  The landlord said he had no notice of his father’s promise; he, however, allowed the priest to remain in possession, and the priest expended 400 l. in buildings, on the faith that he would not be disturbed.  A dispute subsequently arose about trespass, and the fences on the boundary between the priest’s farm and some land in the possession of the landlord.  The landlord served notice to quit, and brought an ejectment.  After some delay judgment was given in his favour, subject to an application to the Court of Chancery to compel him to fulfil his father’s promise of a lease.’

The Master of the Rolls thus characterised the law which justifies the robbery of the tenants by unscrupulous and vindictive landlords:—­

’Even if the Rev. Dr. O’Fay had no claim except as tenant from year to year, I have no hesitation in stating that, although in point of law on the authorities I have referred to, and particularly the case of Felling v. Armitage, the petitioner’s suit could not be sustained, yet noticing can be more repugnant to the principles of natural justice than that a landlord should look on at a great expenditure carried on by a tenant from year to year, without warning the tenant of his intention to turn him out of possession.  The defendant’s offer to allow Dr. O’Fay to remove the buildings was a mockery. I have no jurisdiction to administer equity in the natural sense of that term, or I should have no difficulty whatever in making a decree against the defendant. I am bound to administer an artificial system, established by the decisions of eminent judges, such as Lord Eldon and Sir William Grant, and being so bound, I regret much that I must administer injustice in this case, and dismiss the petition, but I shall dismiss it without costs. I should be very glad for the sake of justice that my decision should be reversed by the Court of Appeal.’