this method of procedure adopted by a few that the entire class have been credited. But though
exactly answer that question for this very simple reason—the lessee, the middleman, being in abject poverty from idleness, took fines, so that it is impossible to tell."
Rt. Hon. the Earl of Glengall, Dig. Dev. Com. p. 278.
Evidence of Wm. Hamilton, Esq. Agent.
"Did any of these old leases contain the non-letting clauses?—Yes; but they were inoperative. "Do you know of any cases in which an attempt was made to oblige the tenants to act under them?—No; because the law was, that any permission or toleration of a breach by the landlord, did away with the covenant altogether until the recent act; then, as in most instances, partial consents were given, or breaches overlooked; it became a matter quite hopeless on the part of the landlord to enforce the covenant when the evils of subletting became apparent."—Digest, Dev. Com. p. 281.
Evidence of Mr. Ed. Byne, Farmer.
"Do the landlords permit the sale ? — They are very seldom consulted; they would not be satisfied generally. In Lord Carrick's leases there was a covenant against subletting, still the tenants broke through that, and the trustees could not prevent them doing so."—Ibid. p. 315.
William Ford, Esq. Sessional Solicitor for County Meath, Land Agent and Town Clerk to the Corporation of city of Dublin.
"What do you conceive to be a power which could be fairly given to prevent too minute subdivisions?—If I were going to make a law to regulate the tenure of land, I certainly would make it part of that law to prevent the too minute subdivision of it, because I would coerce by the law the parties to send their families to earn their bread at different trades. That would create manufacture, and put them in other callings, and they have now other countries to go to, which would lead to emigration. Without compulsion they would learn trades and business, and go abroad of their own accord, and perhaps return to the hive enriched."—Ibid p. 424.
