e deceived and misled. For the purpose of
showing the reliance to be placed on Lord John Russell's authority, we
shall take up one case, (that of Patrick Ring,) and follow it out to its
conclusion.

"The first proceeding was against Patrick Ring, a tenant, who held
on a lease of thirty-one years and a life, and who owed no arrears
up to 1842; the proceedings against him began in March 1841, and
have given rise to a complicated variety of actions at law, ending
with his ejectment and utter beggary.

"As he owed no rent, and as no possible reason for getting rid of
him as a tenant could be assigned, nor was ever offered until long
after proceedings had begun, a bold stroke to make a beginning was
absolutely requisite, and it was struck. The lease specified a
certain day in May and in November, as that on which the
half-yearly rent would fall due. Those days had been strictly
adhered to, and no one knew this better than the landlord. But in
1841 he obtained a warrant of distraint,[39] and seized on Ring on
the 26th of March, for rent alleged to be due on the 25th. It might
have been a hard enough misfortune to be distrained on the day
following that of the rent being due in any case, especially in
spring, when the cattle and implements of labour, as also the
seed-corn, and potatoes, the articles distrained, are required for
the peculiar duties of that most important season, seed-time. But
when such a distraint was made on such articles, so indispensable
in their uses even for a day, to say nothing of weeks, and no rent
nor debt of any kind owing, the case is peculiarly a hard one on
the tenant.

"Patrick Ring caused a replevin to be entered with the
sheriff--that is, he gave security that he would pay the rent, if
rent was due, as soon as a trial at quarter-sessions or assizes
could be had--that he might in the mean time get the use of the
property upon which the distraint lay. He accordingly proved by his
lease that he owed nothing--that no rent was due until May. But
before that was done, May had come, and the rent was due. He paid
it punctually, and proceeded against the landlord for damages, or
rather for the costs to which he had been exposed. This being
opposed, occupied much time; and before it was settled, the
landlord once more distrained for r