TENANT-RIGHT IN ULSTER.
The Earl of Granard has taken a leading part in the movement for the
settling of the land question, having presided at two great meetings
in the counties in which he has large estates, Wexford and Longford,
supported on each occasion by influential landlords. He was the first
of his class to propose that the question should be settled on the
basis of tenant-right, by legalising and extending the Ulster custom.
A reference to this custom has been frequently made recently, in
discussions on the platform and in the press. I have studied the
history of that province with care; and I have during the year 1869
gone through several of its counties with the special object of
inquiring how the tenant-right operates, and whether, and to what
extent, it affords the requisite security to the cultivators of the
soil; and it may be of some service that I should give here the result
of my enquiries.
Of the six counties confiscated and planted in Ulster, Londonderry,
as I have already remarked, was allotted to the London companies. The
aspect of their estates, is on the whole, very pleasing. In the midst
of each there is a small town, built in the form of a square, with a
market-house and a town-hall in the centre, and streets running off at
each side. There are almost invariably three substantial and handsome
places of worship--the parish church, always best and most prominent,
the presbyterian meeting-house, and the catholic chapel, with nice
manses for the ministers, all built wholly or in part by grants from
the companies.
Complaints were constantly made against the Irish Society for its
neglect of its trust, for refusing to give proper building leases, and
for wasting the funds placed at its disposal for public purposes. The
details are curious and interesting, throwing much light on the
social history of the times. The whole subject of its duties and
responsibilities, and of its anomalous powers, was fully discussed
at a meeting of the principal citizens, most of them strongly
Conservative, on the 28th of May, 1866. There had been a discussion
on the subject in the House of Commons, in which Lord Claud Hamilton,
then member for the borough, distinguished himself. Mr. Maguire
brought the Society before Parliament in an able speech. The
legislature, as well as the public, were then preoccupied with the
Church question. But, doubtless, the maiden city will make her voice
heard next session, and insist on being released from a guardian who
always acted the part of a stepmother.
The Irish Society has been before three parliamentary tribunals, the
Commissioners of Municipal Corporations for England and Wales, the
Royal Commission of Enquiry into the state of the Corporation
of London, and the Irish Municipal Commissioners. The English
Commissioners say:--'We do not know of any pretext or argument for
continuing this municipal supremacy of the Irish Society. A control
of this kind maintained at the present day by the municipality of
one town in England over another town in Ireland, appears to us
so indefensible in principle, that our opinion would not have been
changed, even if it were found that hitherto it has been conducted
with discretion and forbearance.'
The Irish commissioners affirmed 'that the Irish Society in their
original institution were created for the purpose of forwarding the
interests and objects of the Plantation, and not for mere private
gain; and that of the large income which they receive from their
possessions in Londonderry, a very inadequate and disproportionate
share is applied for the public purposes, or other objects connected
with the local interests of the districts from which the revenues of
the society are drawn.'
The corporation of Derry cannot put a bye-law in force till it
receives the approval of the Irish Society. And what is this tribunal
whose fiat must stamp the decision of the Derry corporation before it
can operate in the smallest matter within the municipal boundary?
The members are London traders, totally ignorant of Ireland. They
are elected for two years, so that they must go out by the time they
acquire any information about their trust, to make way for another
batch equally ignorant. Having everything to learn during their term
of office, if they have time or capacity to learn anything about
the matter, they must submit to the guidance of the governor, who is
elected virtually, though not formally, for life; and the members of
the Derry corporation believe him to be the autocrat of the society.
Mr. James P. Hamilton, now the assistant-barrister for Sligo, at the
great meeting of the citizens of Derry already mentioned, pronounced
the governors to be 'the most ignorant, the most incompetent, and the
most careless governors that ever were inflicted on a people.' Mr.
Hamilton quoted from the answer of the corporation of London in 1624
to the Privy Council, which required them to convey 4,000 acres to
the citizens of Derry. The corporation replied that they had allotted
1,500 acres for the use of the mayor and other civil officers. That
was either true or false. If true, by what right did they recall the
grant, and re-possess themselves of those lands? By the articles they
were bound to make quays, which were not made. They were bound to
give bog and mountain for the city common, which they never gave. The
corporation had a tract called the sheriffs mountain, but the city was
robbed of it by her cruel stepmother, the Irish Society. The society
was bound to give 200 acres for a free school, and if this had been
done Derry might have had a rich foundation, rivalling Westminster
or the Charter School. Mr. Hamilton, conservative as he is, with the
heart of a true Irishman, indignantly asks, 'Why is this national
grievance and insult continued for the profit of no one? Their very
name is an insult and a mockery--_The Governor and Assistants, London,
of the New Plantation in Ulster_! What do they govern? They don't
govern us in any sense of the word. They merely hold our property in
a dead grip, without any profit to themselves, and to our great
disadvantage.'
The city is overwhelmed with debt--debt for the new quays, debt for
the new bridge, debt for the public works of the corporation, which
has struggled to improve the city under the incubus of this alien
power, contending with debt, want of tenure, and other difficulties,
which would all have been avoided if the city had the lands which
these Londoners hold in their possession and use as their own pleasure
dictates, half the revenues being spent in the management.
Mr. William Hazlett, a magistrate of Derry, one of its ablest and
most respected citizens, stated that from 1818 to 1847 the expenses
of management were 60 per cent. The royal commissioners set it down
thus--Total expenditure, 219,898 l.; management, 133,912 l. The
law expenses were, during the same period, 40,000 l. 'This item
of itself,' says Mr. Hazlett, 'must be considered an intolerable
grievance, for it was laid out for the oppression of the people who
should have benefited by the funds so squandered in opposing the
very parties who supplied the money, with which they were themselves
harassed. If a tenant applies for a lease, and the society consents
to grant one, it is so hampered with obstructive clauses that his
solicitor objects to his signing it, and says that from its nature it
could not be made a negotiable instrument on which to raise money. The
tenant remonstrates, but the reply of the city is--"That is our form
of lease; you must comply with it or want!" If you go to law with
them, they may take you into Chancery, and fight you with your own
money.'
Mr. Hazlett gave a remarkable illustration of this, which shows
the spirit in which this body thinks proper to fulfil its duties as
steward of this property. The Devon Land Commission recommended that
leases of lives renewable for ever should be converted into fee-farm
grants, which would be a valuable boon to the tenant without any loss
to the owner. A bill founded on the recommendation was introduced to
parliament. Did the enlightened and liberal Irish Society hail
with satisfaction this wise measure of reform? On the contrary, the
governor went out of his way to oppose it. Having striven in vain,
with all the vast influence of the corporation, to have the bill
thrown out, he endeavoured to get the society exempted from its
operation. When, in spite of his efforts, the bill became law, the
governor utterly refused to act on it, and brought the matter before
the Master of the Rolls and the House of Lords. From these renewable
leases the society had an income of about 2,500 l. yearly. And what
amount did they demand--these moderate and discreet gentleman, 'The
Governor and Assistants, London, of the new Plantation of Ulster'--for
their interest in the renewable leases? Not less than 100,000 l., or
about 40 years' purchase. In the year 1765, when the city of Derry was
fast hastening to decay under this London government, the society was
induced by an increase of 37 per cent. on the rent, to grant those
renewable leases. 'And but for the granting of those leases,' said Mr.
Hazlett, 'we should have no standing-ground in this city, nor should
we even have the right to meet in this hall as we do to-day.'
Other striking facts illustrating the paternal nature of this foreign
government of the 'New Plantation' were produced by Mr. Thomas
Chambers, a solicitor who had defended the Rev. J.M. Staples in a suit
brought by the society, and which cost them 40,000 l. of the public
money to win, after dragging the reverend gentleman from one court to
another, regardless of expense. Originally, as we have seen, the city
got a grant of 4,000 acres for the support of the corporation; but
actually received only 1,500, valued then at 60 l., a year. This land
was forfeited and transferred to the bishop in the reign of Charles I.
Ultimately the bishop gave up the land and the fishery, for which the
see received, and still receives, 250 l. a year. The society got, hold
of the 1,500 acres, and refused to give them back to the city, which,
with the alienation of the sheriff's mountain, and the raising of the
city rents (in 1820) from 40 l. to 600 l. a year, left it 1,000 l. a
year worse than it had been previously. The result of this policy of
a body which was established for promoting 'civility' in Ireland, was,
that the credit of the corporation went down rapidly. Executions were
lodged against them, and all their property in quays, markets, &c.
was swept away, the bridge being saved only by the intervention of a
special act of parliament. In 1831, however, the society granted the
corporation an allowance of 700 l. When the reformed corporation came
in, and found that they were so far emancipated from the thraldom of
the London governor that they could go before parliament themselves,
the society was constrained to increase its dole to 1,200 l. a year.
Mr. Isaac Colhoun, at the meeting referred to, produced from the
accounts of the society for the previous year, published in the local
papers, the following items:--
£ s. d.
Amount of the present increased income 11,091 17 5
________________
Incidental expenses as per general agents' account
for 1865 114 3 0-1/2
Law expenses 492 7 11
Salaries to general agent, deputy, vice-admiral,
surveyor, and others 926 16 6
Pension to general agent 250 0 0
Visitation expenses, 1865 539 19 6
Surveying expenses 50 0 0
Salary of clerk and porter's wages 197 10 0
Coal, gas, printing, stationery, advertisements 449 11 5
Salary to secretary and assistant governor, and
'assistants' for attendance at 51 meetings 549 1 6
________________
4,094 1 6
Here, then, is a trust fund amounting to about 12,000 l. a year, and
the trustees actually spend one-third in its management! And what
is its management? What do they do with the money? Mr. Pitt Skipton,
D.L., a landed proprietor, who has nothing to gain or lose by the
Irish Society, asks, 'Where is our money laid out now? Not on the
estate of the Irish Society, but on the estates of the church and
private individuals--on those of owners like myself who give their
tenants perpetuity, because it is their interest to do so. We should
wish to see the funds of the society so expended that we could see
some memorial of them. But where is there in Derry any monument wholly
erected by the society which they were not specially forced to put up
by charter, with the exception of a paltry piece of freestone within
one of the bastions bearing their own arms.'
Let us only imagine what the corporation of Derry could do in local
improvements with this 12,000 l. a year, which is really their own
property, or even with the 4,000 l. a-year squandered upon themselves
by the trustees! Some of these worthy London merchants, it seems, play
the _rôle_ of Irish landlords when travelling on the Continent, on
the strength of this Derry estate, or their _assistantship_ in its
management. 'I object,' says Mr. J.P. Hamilton, 'if I take a
little run in the summer vacation to Paris or Brussels, to meet a
greasy-looking gentleman from Whitechapel or the Minories, turned out
sleek and shining from Moses', and to be told by him that he has a
large property in _Hireland_, in a place called Derry, and that his
tenantry are an industrious, thriving set of fellows, quite remarkable
for their intelligence, but that it is all owing to his excellent
management of his property and his liberality.'
Mr. Hazlett presented a still funnier picture of the Irish
'visitations' of the members of the society, with their wives and
daughters every summer. Gentlemen in London regard it as a fine lark
to get elected to serve in the Irish Society, as that includes
a summer trip to Ireland free of expense, with the jolliest
entertainment. One gentleman, being asked by another whether he was
ever in Ireland, answered--'No, but I intend to get on the Irish
Society next year and then I'll have a trip. What kind of people are
they over there? Do they all speak Irish?'
'Oh, no; they are a very decent, civilised people.'
'Oh, I'm glad they don't speak Irish; for none of us do, of course;
but my daughter can speak French.'
'They had a great siege one time over there?'
'Oh, yes; the Derry people are proud of the siege.'
'Ah, yes, I see; happened in the reign of King John, I believe.'
But the heaviest charge laid at the door of the Irish Society is its
persistent refusal to grant proper tenures for building. By this, even
more than their reckless squandering of the revenues of a fine estate,
which is not their own, they have obstructed the improvement of the
city. They might possibly be compelled to refund the wasted property
of their ward, but they could never compensate for stunting and
crippling her as they have done. Fortunately, there is a standard by
which we are able to measure this iniquity with tolerable accuracy.
Dr. William Brown, of Derry, testified that it was the universal
conviction of the people of Derry, of all classes and denominations,
that, by the mismanagement of their trust, the Irish Society had
converted the crown grant from the blessing it was intended to be, and
which it would have been under a just administration, into something
more akin to a curse. For anything that saps the self-reliant and
independent spirit of a community must always be a curse. Within the
last hundred years Belfast was not in advance of Derry in population,
in trade, in capital, or in any other element constituting or
conducing to prosperity. Its river was not so navigable, and by no
means so well adapted to foreign, especially transatlantic trade. The
country surrounding it was not superior in soil, nor the inhabitants
in intelligence and enterprise. It had no estate, as Derry had,
granted by the crown to assist in the development of civilisation,
education, and commerce. Its prospects, then, were inferior to those
of Derry. But Belfast had the one thing, most needful of all, that
Derry had not. It had equitable building tenures. And of this one
advantage, look at the result! 'Belfast is now seven times the size of
Derry; and is in possession of a trade and a trade capital which Derry
can never hope to emulate, while smothered by the stick-in-the-mud
policy of that miserable anachronism the Irish Society.'
The London companies which have estates in the county Derry claimed
to be entitled to all the surplus revenue after the cost of management
was deducted. This was the question raised by the celebrated
'Skinners' case,' ultimately decided by the House of Lords. The effect
of the decision was, that the society was a trustee, not for the
companies but for the public objects defined in the charter and the
'articles of agreement.' Lord Langdale's language on the subject is
perfectly clear and explicit. He declared that the Irish Society have
not, 'collectively or individually,' any beneficial interest in the
estates. In a sense they are trustees. They have important duties
to perform; but their powers and duties have all reference to the
_Plantation_, whose object was purely public and political.
Adverting to this judgment, it is not Derry alone that is interested
in the abolition of the Irish Society. Its objects 'affected the
general welfare of Ireland and the whole realm.' The city of London,
in its corporate capacity, had no beneficial interest in the estates.
'The money which it had advanced was early repaid, and the power which
remained, or which was considered to remain, was, like that of the
society, an entrusted power for the benefit of the plantation and
those interested in it. The Irish Society seems to have been little,
if anything, more than the representative or instrument of the city
for the purposes of the Plantation.'
I subjoin the text of the concluding part of the judgment in the
_Skinners' Case_, the report of which fills a very bulky volume:--
Lord Langdale said: 'The mistaken views which the society may have
subsequently taken of its own situation and duties (and I think that
such mistaken views have several times been taken) do not vary the
conclusion to be deduced from the charter and the circumstances
contemporary with the grant of the first charter. I am of opinion that
the powers granted to the society and the trusts reposed in them were
in part of a general and public nature, independent of the private
benefit of the companies of London, and were intended by the crown
to benefit Ireland and the city of London, by connecting the city
of Londonderry and the town of Coleraine and a considerable Irish
district with the city of London, and to promote the general purposes
of the Plantation, not only by securing the performance of the
conditions imposed on ordinary undertakers, but also by the exercise
of powers and the performance of trusts not within the scope of those
conditions. The charter of Charles II. expressly recites that the
property not actually divided was retained for the general operation
of the Plantation.'