By all means let us drop any hostility Jim. None was ever intended. Thank you for explaining who the T.P. mentioned in the song was, although why you simply did not do that in the first place I do not know. I would also like to thank you for the rather round about admission that his name did not appear in any link supplied by you making your highly judgmental statement "If you actually read the historical link to what was put up you would know who TP was - as you appear to not be interested in what others have to say or what the 'man in the street' passed on to is in the form of oral history, I see little point in continuing with you totally in error and without foundation.

You say of this statement "by his Housekeeper in the form of her letter dismissing the allegations" - How can this be considered any more "evidence" than the dozens of local reports or the twenty-odd songs describing his bad behaviour ?

It can be considered as being evidence under what is known as "rules of evidence" in that it was a written statement in response to the accusations leveled against her employer as being the possible motive for the attack on him that left three men dead. The "droit de Seigneur" nonsense was a red herring designed to throw the police off the scent. Lord Leitrum was murdered because of his policy of eviction, nothing else:

The assassins, Nial Shiels of Doughmore, an itinerant tailor, Michael Hergarty of Tullyconnell, and Michael MvElwee of Ballyworiskey (The actual assassin of Lord Leitrum), were from the remote Fanad Peninsula. In 1877, "McElwee's father was involved in litigation with Leitrim with the result that McElwee was rendered bankrupt, and his house and farm were sold at auction."

Somebody saying something about a third party because they "heard it" from someone else down the pub who was married to someone who "heard it" from her cousin who's aunty delivered vegetables to the grocer who supplied big house cannot be considered "evidence" under those very same rules. Just because someone WANTS to believe a story does not make the story TRUE. Strange that after his death not a single one of his victims ever came forward to corroborate the allegations.

The letter was written at the time when rumour of this "droit de Seigneur" were proposed to her as being the cause of Lord Leitrum's murder.

How can someone testify that something "never happened" unless the accusations are specified?
Her statement amounts no no more than "'is lordship would never do such a thing"

You say, and here you are expressing your opinion, you are not stating fact - "Her statement amounts no no more than "'is lordship would never do such a thing" - What is stated in the letter written by the person in charge of the house and all those employed in the household is a categorical refutation of the allegations inferred by what was nothing more than unverifiable and unsubstantiated gossip.

Another opinion offered by you states - What else is a woman who relies on sucking up to the gentry for her living going to say? - If the story you believe to be the truth is the truth then it would appear that everybody in the area relied on their living by sucking up to the gentry yet you find one section is to be believed but others are not. The letter was written after Lord Leitrum's death so she had no need to suck up to anybody, her "living" had gone.

Nobody has responded to his feller's reputation as described by his fellow peers That some of his fellow peers in the House of Lords described Lord Leitrum as a bit of a "bad lot" is irrelevant and could relate to a whole host of other reasons for them passing that judgement. Nowhere is it stated that it had any connection to the "droit de Seigneur" nonsense.

It was a fairly common suggestion that the landed gentry liked to dip their quills in the local inkwells - why not Leitrim? It being a "fairly common SUGGESTION" does not make it established fact.

Nobody seems to want to discuss the actual surroundings of the situation and the power of (virtually) life and death these people wielded and the proven way they used it to exile millions and evict many more millions to homelessness and permanent exile What would there be to discuss? We are talking here of an event that happened in 1878 when things were very different to the way things are now. But with regard to the payment of rent by a tenant the simple fact remains that if rent is not paid the tenant is evicted that was and still is the case anywhere in the UK and I dare say in the ROI.