The above is not an overdrawn description of the consequences of subdividing land, but a change in management is said to have taken place soon after the peace, when the decline in the price of agricultural produce disabled many of the middlemen as well as the occupying tenants from paying their rents, and created much anxiety and alarm in the minds of the landlords. An apprehension was moreover, we are told, generally felt that a pauper population would go on increasing, and the value of the land at the same time go on diminishing, until the entire produce would become insufficient to maintain the people. The proprietors sought to devise a remedy for this state of things, so as to prevent the occurrence of such an evil; and Dr. Doyle stated in his evidence, that they did apply remedies, the principle of which he fully approved; but he added “that he thought, and still thinks, that those remedies ought to have been accompanied by some provision for the poor.” The remedy or change in management here adverted to was the consolidating of farms, which it is said would lead to better husbandry, to a greater certainty of crop, to the providing farm-buildings and more comfortable habitations, and to an increase in the quantity and improvement in the quality of the produce. These are all important considerations, and if the landlords and the tenants who continued in possession were alone to be regarded, the change would appear an unmixed good. But there is another class, the ejected tenants, whose condition, it is said, necessarily becomes most deplorable. “It would be impossible for language to convey an idea of the state of distress to which the ejected tenantry have been reduced, or of the disease, misery, and even vice, which they have propagated in the towns wherein they have settled; so that not only they who have been ejected have been rendered miserable, but they have carried with them and propagated that misery.”