their potato gardens,[1] they had neither seed, nor horses, nor even food, to carry them through the winter. No difference of tenure would have saved them. Had they owned the fee, it would have been all the same.[2] Their only chance of life was to get away—some to the poor-house,[3] others to America.[4] As for the landlord, his position was every whit as bad. It was not a question of rent,
- ↑ "The effects of sub-division are very bad; first the land is cut into such small patches that a plough and horses in many cases will hardly turn in the field."—Dig. Devon Commission, p. 426. Evidence of John Hancock, Esq., (an Ulster Agent).
- ↑ "To grant to the occupiers the fee of their holdings, freed from every rent and tax, would not cure our vital distemper. This is undeniable, when we find that the day labouring population in many districts, are almost wholly without employment, and that the entire produce of the holdings of nearly one-half of the occupiers of land throughout Ireland would be inadequate to the proper sustenance of the families residing upon them, supposing that no charge for rent or taxes existed."Dig. Dev. Com. Summary, p. 757.
- ↑ As many as 3,000,000 persons were at one time in receipt of public relief.
- ↑ The poverty stricken condition of the small tenantry of Ireland at this period cannot be depicted in truer or more graphic terms than those adopted by Mr. Fishbourne, himself a tenant farmer.
"The small tenantry are generally without any capital, except what is barely sufficient to get in the crop and keep a cow. Many of them are in a deplorable condition, being over-whelmed with debts to loan funds, usurers, and mealmen, owing to the damage to their potatoes for the last three years. In several instances their stock and furniture have been sold, under warrants from loan banks, &c; that I know of my own knowledge."—Digest Devon Commission, p. 199, evidence of Jos. Fishbourne, Farmer.
