tion; though each be the result of voluntary adjustment, it is the same abject misery and absence of
in, but I believe it never availed, because the courts of law allowed what they termed waivers in such matters. If a landlord received rent after he know the subletting had taken place, it was admitted as a waiver; and I believe for that very reason the landlords gave up inserting the clauses." Dig. Dev. Com, p. 444.
Evidence of Robert D'Arcy, Esq., Farmer and Agent.
"The middlemen, we found, destroyed every thing they had to do with. They were not satisfied with the profit from farming, but they covered the land with poor tenants; and it is easy to
explain to any one acquainted with the country the desire they have to subdivide. Every man who has twenty acres of land, if he has a good house, and a barn, and a cow-house and stable, the first thing he does is to put his son into the barn. The son says, 'I am not satisfied to live in that manner with you, and I will put up a chimney in the stable;' and they never stop till they cover the little farm, that was once a comfortable thing, and bring the greatest possible misery upon themselves. It is to get rid of those that we ship those people to America.
"Does the subletting or subdivision of farms still continue?—Very much; where a poor man can do it he will do it, particularly with their own families. When a family grows up they become a little unpleasant, and wish to settle themselves—the daughter must have her part, and the son must have his part.
"Is it permitted by the landlords?—No.
"What course do they adopt to prevent it?—Where there is a clause against subletting they proceed according to that clause to put them out, but latterly there has been some change in the Act in respect to that; that unless the penalty was set forth, and recited in the body of the lease, you could not enforce it. I think nothing would prevent it but a clause making it an avoidance of the lease."—Ibid. p. 444.
Evidence of John Duke, Esq., M.D., Leitrim.
