"It can be considered as being evidence under what is known as "rules of evidence"
As evidence of good character - no more
As I said you can only give evidence that a crime was committed - unless the crime was specified with time, date and location, that's all
Whatever way you look at it Leitrim was not of good character (even though his housekeeper said he was, plenty more, including his peers in the House of Lords denied this)
"The "droit de Seigneur" nonsense "
You know this of course - of course you don't, nobody does, but the exercising of power and influence to gain sexual favours is as documented a fact as you could wish to have
It seems to me you are defending the indefensible
Your reason for doing so becomes obvious in your sentence "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."
Are you really suggesting that the death of millions and the forcible emigrations that followed the famine are less important than paying the rent
Had the Famine occurred in the Midlands and a similar approach was taken, there would have been guillotines on the streets of Birmingham
Evidence such as this, from the man appointed by the British Government to deal with the effects of the Famine, Sir Charles Trevelyan, suggest that it wasn't just mishandled, but deliberate policy.

In a letter to an Irish peer, Lord Monteagle of Brandon, a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, he described the famine as an "effective mechanism for reducing surplus population" as well as "the judgement of God" and wrote that "The real evil with which we have to contend is not the physical evil of the Famine, but the moral evil of the selfish, perverse and turbulent character of the people"

That seems to be what you are supporting
Think we're finished here
Jim Carroll