The tenants paid their rent neither better nor worse than their neighbours, when after Easter, 1884, they all went to the agent together. They carried their money in their hands. The agent, believing that they had come to pay him, began complimenting them on punctuality to which he was unaccustomed, when the priest, who was with them, stepped forward, and, speaking in the name of his parishioners, told him that the tenants were ready to pay, provided that the rents were at once reduced ten per cent. If this reduction, which was to affect not only the quarters now due, but also those that were in arrears, were not accepted, nothing more would be paid. The agent replied that he had not the requisite authority to accept these propositions, which to him seemed very unjust. The land was let in a very unequal way, for as the rents had not been raised for a long time the relative value of the land was much changed, so that whilst some paid a full price, others paid much too little. If they wished the arrangements re-made on a new basis it would not be just for the same reduction to be made for them all. The tenants would not listen, and they all left him without paying a penny. The following day they assembled at a meeting, the priest still acting as president. It was agreed that five delegates should go to Dublin to see Lord Cloncurry and to lay the matter before him. He did not receive the embassy very graciously, but replied to them in the same words as the agent had done. He did not refuse them all a reduction, but he would not admit that a reduction should be the same for all; lastly, and above all, he would not allow them to impose upon him, by threats, terms that he thought were undesirable. If the tenants would not pay, he would show himself lenient towards arrears, but he would get rid of them all, even if he cultivated the land himself. Before they separated, they had roused a great deal of anger towards each other. It is easy to see that the whole business was badly managed from the commencement. Lord Cloncurry had not the reputation of being a hard or exacting landlord. On the other hand, any one who is in the habit of managing land, and who is acquainted with the state of agriculture, not only in Ireland, but nearly all over the world, will see at once that the demand for a reduction of ten per cent. was not excessive. Only it is quite certain that the tenants owed the rents in arrear. In asking for a reduction on this portion of their debt, they were soliciting a favour, and to begin with threats is not the way to obtain a favour. Lastly, in spite of my sympathy for the Irish, I can never understand one thing--namely, that the landowner can be denied the right of sending away a tenant who will not pay.