be alleged against individual proprietors. In the first place, they are necessarily derived from ex parte statements, and their merits cannot be readily investigated;[1] and, in the next, their
- ↑ It is not often, that an opportunity occurs of subjecting these charges to the test of an impartial inquiry, but whenever an investigation is set on foot they hardly sustain strict scrutiny, a fact especially recorded in the summary of the evidence taken before the Devon Commission.
"Many of the witnesses appeared to be impressed with the idea that the power of ejectment is frequently used by landlords from caprice to strengthen their political party, or to persecute their religious opponents; and some cases were brought before the commission as instances of that power having been so used. But upon investigation of these cases few of them appear to justify such imputations. In general either the allegations were altogether unfounded, or mainly based upon hear-say—or it appeared that the ejectment was brought in consequence of the tenant having incurred a heavy arrear of rent, and being unwilling, or unable, to discharge it. In many estates, a small sum of money was given to those who resigned their land; and the extent to which the increased holdings were brought, was generally but small, barely sufficient for those who remained."
"There is no question that the condition of the property, as well as of the occupiers, in most of these cases, required a change, as their previous state was for the most part very miserable."—Digest Devon Commission, Summary, p. 830.
"There were frequent charges made against agents of oppressive conduct, which in general when investigated, appeared merely to have consisted in compelling the payment of an arrear of rent, or preventing a ruinous subdivision of the farms."Digest Devon Commission, Summary, p. 1027.
And again:"Evidence of Christopher Galwey, Esq., agent to Lord Kenmare.
"My reply to the statement made by Mr. Barry as to the {{hws|dis|dispossession
