TENANT-RIGHT IN ANTRIM.
I find from the Antrim Survey, published in 1812, that at that time
leases were general on the Hertfort estate. There were then about
3,600 farmers who held by that tenure, each holding, on an average,
twenty English acres, but many farms contained 100 acres or more. Mr.
Hugh M'Call, of Lisburn, the able author of 'Our Staple Manufactures,'
gives the following estimates of the rental. In 1726, it was 3,500
l.; in 1768, it was 12,000 l.; and for 1869, his estimate is 63,000 l.
Taking the estimate given by Dean Stannus, as 10 l. or 12 l. an acre,
the tenant-right of the estate is worth 500,000 l. at the very least,
probably 600,000 l. is the more correct figure. This vast amount of
property created by the industry and capital of the tenants, is held
at the will of an absentee landlord, who has on several occasions
betrayed an utter want of sympathy with the people who lie thus at his
mercy. There are tenant farmers on the estate who hold as much as
100 to 200 acres, with handsome houses built by themselves, whose
interest, under the custom, should amount to 1,500 l. and 2,500 l.
respectively, which might be legally swept away by a six months'
notice to quit. The owners of this property might be regarded as very
independent, but in reality, unless the spirit of martyrdom has raised
them above the ordinary feelings of human nature, they will take care
to be very humble and submissive towards Lord Hertfort's agents. If
words were the same as deeds, if professions were always consistent
with practice, the tenants would certainly have nothing to fear; for
great pains have been taken from time to time, both by the landlord
and agent, to inspire them with unbounded confidence.
In the year 1845, the tenants presented an address to Lord Hertfort,
in which they said:--'It is a proud fact, worthy to be recorded, that
the tenant-right of the honest and industrious man on your lordship's
estate is a certain and valuable tenure to him, so long as he
continues to pay his rent.' To this his lordship replied in the
following terms:--'I am happy to find that the encouragement I
have given to the improvement of the land generally has been found
effectual, and I trust that the advantage to the tenant of the
improved system of agriculture will be found to increase; and I beg
to assure you that with me the right of the improving tenant shall
continue to be as scrupulously respected as it has been hitherto by
my ancestors. Your kindness alone, independent of the natural
interest which I must ever feel as to everything connected with this
neighbourhood, affords a powerful inducement to my coming among you,
and I hope to have the pleasure of often repeating my visit.'
Twenty-four years have since elapsed, and during all that time the
marquis has never indulged himself in a repetition of the exquisite
pleasure he then enjoyed. At a banquet given in his honour on that
occasion, he used the following language, which was, no doubt,
published in the _Times_, and read with great interest in London and
Paris:--'This is one of the most delightful days I ever spent. Trust
me, I have your happiness and welfare at heart, and it shall ever
be my endeavour to promote the one and contribute to the other.' The
parting scene on this occasion must have been very touching; for,
in tearing himself away, his lordship said: 'I have now come to the
concluding toast. It is, "Merry have we met, and merry may we _soon_
meet again!"'
The tenants could scarcely doubt the genuineness of their landlord's
feelings, for on the same occasion Dean Stannus said: 'I feel myself
perfectly justified in using the term "a good landlord;" because his
lordship's express wish to me often was, "I hope you will always
keep me in such a position that I may be considered the friend of
my tenants."' But as he did not return to them, a most respectable
deputation waited upon him in London in the year 1850, to present
a memorial praying for a reduction of rent on account of the potato
blight and other local calamities which had befallen the tenantry. The
memorialists respectfully showed 'that under the encouraging auspices
of the Hertfort family, and on the faith of that just and equitable
understanding which has always existed on this estate--that _no
advantage would be taken of the tenant's improvements in adjusting
the letting value of land_, they had invested large sums of money in
buildings and other improvements on their farms, and that this, under
the name of tenant-right, was a species of sunk capital that was
formerly considered a safe repository for accumulated savings, which
could be turned to account at any time of difficulty by its sale, or
as a security for temporary advances.' In his reply, Lord Hertfort
said, 'I seek not to disturb any interest, much less do I wish to
interfere by any plan or arrangement of mine with the tenant-right
which my tenants have hitherto enjoyed, and which it is my anxious
wish to preserve to them.'
The faith and hope inspired by these assurances of the landlord were
repeatedly encouraged and strengthened by the public declarations of
his very reverend agent, Dean Stannus. At a meeting of the Killultagh
and Derryvolgie Farming Society, in 1849, he stated that he had great
pleasure in subscribing to almost everything said by Mr. M'Call.
He had taken great pains to convince the late Lord Hertfort that
tenant-right was one of the greatest possible boons, _as well to the
landlords themselves_ as to the tenants. So advantageous did he regard
it to the interest of Lord Hertfort and the tenants, that if it were
not preserved he would not continue agent to the estate. Tenant-right
was his security for the Marquis of Hertfort's rent, and he would not
ask a tenant to relinquish a single rood of land without paying him at
the rate of 10 l. to 12 l. an acre for it.
Firmly believing in the statements thus emphatically and solemnly made
to them from time to time, that on this estate tenant-right was as
good as a lease, the tenants went on building houses, and making
permanent improvements in Lisburn and elsewhere, depending on this
security. And, indeed, the value of such security could scarcely be
presented under more favourable circumstances. The absentee landlord
receiving such a princely revenue, and absorbed in his Parisian
pursuits, seemed to leave everything to his agent. The agent was
rector of the parish of Lisburn, a dignitary of the Church, a
gentleman of the highest social position, with many excellent points
in his character, and pledged before the world, again and again,
to respect rigidly and scrupulously the enormous property which
a confiding tenantry had invested in this estate. If, under these
circumstances, the security of tenant-right fails, where else can it
be trusted? If it be proved, by open and public proceedings, that on
the Hertfort estate, the distinctly recognised property of the tenant
is liable to be seized and wrested from him by the agent, it is clear
to demonstration that such property absolutely requires the protection
of law. This proof, I am sorry to say, is forthcoming. Let my readers
reflect for a moment on what might have been done for Lisburn and the
surrounding country if the Marquis of Hertfort had rebuilt his castle
and resided among his people. What an impulse to improvement of every
kind, what employment for tradesmen of every class, what business for
shops might have resulted from the local expenditure of 50,000 l. or
60,000 l. a year! What public buildings would have been erected--how
local institutions would have flourished! The proverb that 'absence
makes the heart grow fonder' does not apply to the relations of
landlord and tenant. But there is another proverb that applies
well--'Out of sight, out of mind.' Of this I shall now give two or
three illustrations. Some years ago, it was discovered that no
lease of the Catholic chapel at Lisburn could be found, and in the
recollection of the oldest member of the congregation no rent had been
paid. Kent, however, was now demanded, and the parish priest agreed
to pay a nominal amount, which places the congregation at the mercy
of the office. Ground was asked some time ago to build a Presbyterian
Church, but it was absolutely refused. A sum of money was subscribed
to build a literary institute, but, though a sort of promise was given
for ground to build it on, it was never granted, and the project fell
through. Lord Hertfort spends no portion of his vast income where it
is earned. His estate is like a farm to which the produce is never
returned in the shape of manure, but is all carted off and applied to
the enrichment of a farm elsewhere. One might suppose that where such
an exhausting process has been going on for so long a time an effort
would be made at some sort of compensation, especially at periods of
calamity. Yet, when the weavers on his estate were starving, owing to
the cotton famine during the American war, his lordship never replied
to the repeated applications made to him for help to save alive those
honest producers of his wealth. The noble example of Lord Derby and
other proprietors in Lancashire failed to kindle in his heart a spark
of humanity, not to speak of generous emulation. The sum of 3,000 l.
was raised in Lisburn, and by friends in Great Britain and America,
which was expended in saving the people from going _en masse_ to
the workhouse. Behold a contrast! While the great peer, whose family
inherited a vast estate for which they never paid a shilling, was deaf
to the cries of famishing Christians, whom he was bound by every tie
to commiserate and relieve, an American citizen, who owed nothing
to Ireland but his birth--Mr. A.T. Stewart, of New York--sent a ship
loaded with provisions, which cost him 5,000 l. of his own money, to
be distributed amongst Lord Hertfort's starving tenants, and on
the return of the ship he took out as many emigrants as he could
accommodate, free of charge. The tourist in Ireland is charmed with
the appearance of Lisburn--the rich and nicely cultivated town parks,
the fields white as snow with linen of the finest quality, the busy
mills, the old trees, the clean streets, the look of comfort in the
population, the pretty villas in the country about. Mrs. S.C. Hall
says that there is, probably, no town in Ireland where the happy
effects of English taste and industry are more conspicuous than at
Lisburn. 'From Drumbridge and the banks of the Lagan on one side,
to the shores of Lough Neagh on the other, the people are almost
exclusively the descendants of English settlers. Those in the
immediate neighbourhood of the town were mostly Welsh, but great
numbers arrived from the northern English shires, and from the
neighbourhood of the Bristol Channel. The English language is perhaps
spoken more purely by the populace of this district than by the same
class in any other part of Ireland. The neatness of the cottages, and
the good taste displayed in many of the farms, are little, if at all,
inferior to aught that we find in England, and the tourist who visits
Lough Neagh, passing through Ballinderry, will consider it to have
been justly designated _the garden of the north._ The multitude of
pretty little villages, scattered over the landscape, each announcing
itself by the tapering tower of a church, would almost beguile the
traveller into believing that he was passing through a rural district
in one of the midland counties of England.'
We have seen that after General Conway got this land, it was described
by an English traveller as still uninhabited--'all woods and moor.'
Who made it the garden of the north? The British settlers and their
descendants. And why did they transform this wilderness into fruitful
fields? Because they had permanent tenures and fair rents. The rental
150 years ago was 3,500 l. per annum. Allow that money was three times
as valuable then as it is now, and the rental would have been about
10,500 l. It is now nearly six times that amount. By what means was
the revenue of the landlord increased? Was it by any expenditure of
his own? Did any portion of the capital annually abstracted from
the estate return to it, to fructify and increase its value? Did the
landlord drain the swamps, reclaim the moors, build the dwellings and
farmhouses, make the fences, and plant the orchards? He did nothing
of the kind. Nor was it agricultural industry alone that increased his
revenue. He owes much of the beauty, fertility, and richness of his
estate to the linen manufacture, to those weavers to the cries of
distress from whose famishing children a few years ago the most noble
marquis resolutely turned a deaf ear.
But, passing from historical matters to the immediate purpose of our
enquiry, let it suffice to remark that from Lisburn as a centre the
linen trade in all its branches--flax growing, scutching, spinning,
weaving and bleaching--spread over the whole of the Hertfort estate,
giving profitable employment to the tenants, circulating money,
enabling them to build and improve and work the estate into the
rich and beautiful garden described by Mrs. Hall;--all this work
of improvement has been carried on, all or nearly all the costly
investments on the land have been made, without leases and in
dependence on tenant-right. We have seen what efforts were made by
landlord and agent to strengthen the faith of the tenants in this
security. We have seen also from the historical facts I have adduced
the sort of people that constitute the population of the borough of
Lisburn. If ever there was a population that could be safely entrusted
with the free exercise of the franchise it is the population of
this town--so enlightened, so loyal, so independent in means, such
admirable producers of national wealth, so naturally attached to
British connection. Yet for generations Lisburn has been a pocket
borough, and the nominee of the landlord, often a total stranger, was
returned as a matter of course. The marquis sent to his agent a _congé
d'élire_, and that was as imperative as a similar order to a dean
and chapter to elect a bishop. In 1852 the gentleman whom the Lisburn
electors were ordered to return was Mr. Inglis, the lord advocate of
Scotland. They, however, felt that the time was come when the borough
should be opened, and they should be at liberty to exercise their
constitutional rights. A meeting of the inhabitants was therefore
held, at which Mr. R. Smith was nominated as the popular candidate.
The contest was not political; it was simply the independence of the
borough against the _office_. Dean Stannus, as agent to an absentee
landlord, was the most powerful personage in the place, virtually
the lord of the manor. Before the election that gentleman published a
letter in a Belfast paper contradicting a statement that had
appeared to the effect that Lord Hertfort took little interest in the
approaching contest, in which letter he said: 'I have the best reason
for knowing that his lordship views with intense interest what is
passing here, and that he is most anxious for the return of Mr.
Inglis, feeling that the election of such a representative (which I am
now enabled to say is _certain_) will do much credit to the borough of
Lisburn, and that this _unmeaning_ contest will, at all events, among
its other effects, prove to his lordship whom he may regard as his
_true_ friends in his future relations with this town.'
Notwithstanding this warning, so significantly emphasized, the
candidate whom the voters selected as their real representative was
returned. Now no one can blame the marquis or his agent for wishing
that the choice had fallen upon Mr. Inglis. So far as politics were
concerned, the contest _was_ unmeaning; but so far as the rights of
the people and the loyal working of the British constitution were
concerned, the contest was full of meaning, and if the landlord and
his agent respected the constitution more than their own personal
power they would have frankly acquiesced in the result, feeling that
this Protestant and Conservative constituency had conscientiously
done its duty to the state. But who could have imagined, after all
the solemnly recorded pledges I have quoted, that they would have
instantly resolved to punish the independent exercise of the franchise
by inflicting an enormous and crushing fine amounting to nothing less
than the whole tenant-right property of every adverse voter who had
not a lease! Immediately after the election 'notices to quit' were
served upon every one of them. In consequence of this outrageous
proceeding a public meeting was held, at which a letter from John
Millar, Esq., a most respectable and wealthy man (who was unable to
attend) was read by the secretary. He said: 'I have at various times
purchased places held from year to year, relying on the custom of the
country, and on the declared determination of the landlord and his
agent to respect such customary rights of property, for the continued
possession of it. I have besides taken under the same landlord several
fields as town parks, which were in very bad order. These fields I
have drained and very much improved. I have always punctually paid the
rent charged for the several holdings, and, I think I may venture to
say, performed all the duties of a good tenant. At the last election,
however, I exercised my right as a citizen of a free country,
by giving my votes at Hillsborough and Lisburn in favour of the
tenant-right candidates, without reference to the desires or orders of
those who have no legal or constitutional right to control the use of
my franchise. I have since received from the office a notice to quit,
desiring me to give up possession of all my holdings, as tenant
from year to year, in the counties of Down and Antrim, without any
intimation that I shall receive compensation, and without being able
to obtain any explanation of this conduct towards me except by popular
rumour.' At the same meeting Mr. Hugh M'Call said that he had looked
over some documents and found that the individuals in Lisburn who
had received notices to quit held property to the value of 3,000 l.,
property raised by themselves, or purchased by them with the sanction
of the landlord. In one case the agent himself went into the premises
where buildings were being erected, and suggested some changes. In
fact the improvements were carried out under his inspection as an
architect. Yet he served upon that gentleman a notice to quit. Some
of the tenants paid the penalty for their votes by surrendering their
holdings; others contested the right of eviction on technical points,
and succeeded at the quarter sessions. One of the points was, as
already mentioned, that a dean and rector could not be legally a land
agent at the same time. It was, indeed, a very ugly fact that the
rector of the parish should be thus officially engaged, not only in
nullifying the political rights of his own Protestant parishioners,
but in destroying their tenant-right, evicting them from their
holdings, which _they_ believed to be legal robbery and oppression,
accompanied by such flagrant breach of faith as tended to destroy all
confidence between man and man, and thus to dissolve the strongest
bonds of society. Sad work for a dignitary of the church to be engaged
in!
In April, 1856, there was another contested election. On that
occasion the marquis wrote to a gentleman in Lisburn that he would not
interfere 'directly or indirectly to influence anybody.' Nevertheless,
notices to quit, signed by Mr. Walter L. Stannus, assistant and
successor to his father, were extensively served upon tenants-at-will,
though it was afterwards alleged that they were only served as matters
of form. But what, then, did they mean? They meant that those who
had voted against the office had, _ipso facto, forfeited their
tenant-right property._ Many other incidents in the management of the
estate have been constantly occurring more recently, tending to show
that the most valuable properties created by the tenants-at-will are
at the mercy of the landlord, and that tenant-right, so called, is
not regarded by him as a matter of _right_ at all, but merely as a
_favour_, to be granted to those who are dutiful and submissive to the
office in all matters, political and social. For instance, one farmer
was refused permission to sell his tenant-right till he consented to
sink 100 l. or 200 l. in the shares of the Lisburn and Antrim railway,
so that, as he believed, he was obliged to throw away his money in
order to get his right.
The enormous power of an office which can deal with property amounting
to more than half a million sterling, in such an arbitrary manner,
necessarily generates a spirit of wanton and capricious despotism,
except where the mind is very well regulated and the heart severely
disciplined by Christian duty. Of this I feel bound to give the
following illustration, which I would not do if the fact had not been
made public, and if I had not the best evidence that it is undeniable.
George Beattie, jun., a grocer's assistant in Lisburn, possessed a
beautiful greyhound which he left in charge of George Beattie, sen.,
his uncle, on departing for America. This uncle possessed a farm on
the Hertfort estate, the tenant-right of which he wanted to sell.
Having applied to Mr. Stannus for permission, the answer he received
was that he would not be allowed to sell until the head of the
greyhound was brought to the office. The tenant remonstrated and
offered to send the dog away off the estate to relatives, but to no
effect. He was obliged to kill the greyhound, and to send its head in
a bag to Lord Hertfort's office. It was a great triumph for the agent.
What a pretty sensational story he had to tell the young ladies in the
refined circles in which he moves. How edifying the recital must have
been to the peasantry around him! How it must have exalted their ideas
of the civilising influence of land agency. 'It is quite a common
thing,' says a gentleman well acquainted with the estate, 'when a
tenant becomes insolvent, that his tenant-right is sold and employed
to pay those of his creditors who may be in favour. I know a lady who
made application to have a claim against a small farmer registered in
the office, which was done, and she now possesses the security of the
man's tenant-right for her money.'
The case of the late Captain Bolton is the last illustration I
shall give in connection with this estate. Captain Bolton resided in
Lisburn, and he was one of the most respected of its inhabitants.
He was the owner of four houses in that town, a property which he
acquired in this way:--The site of two of them was obtained by the
late James Hogg, in lieu of freehold property surrendered. On this
ground, his son, Captain Bolton's uncle, built the two houses entirely
at his own expense. Two other houses, immediately adjoining, came into
the market, and he purchased the out-going tenant's 'good-will' for
a sum of about 40 l. These houses were thatched, and in very bad
condition. He repaired them and slated them, and thus formed a nice
uniform block of four workers' houses. Captain Bolton inherited these
from his uncle and retained uninterrupted possession till 1852, when
he voted for Johnston Smyth at the election of that date. Immediately
afterwards he received a notice to quit, an ejectment was brought in
due time, the case was dismissed at the quarter sessions, an appeal
was lodged, but it was again dismissed at the assizes. Undaunted by
these two defeats, the persistent agent served another notice to quit.
The captain was a man of peace, whose nerves could not stand such
perpetual worrying by litigation, and he was so disgusted with
the whole affair that he tied up the keys, and sent them to Lord
Hertfort's office. In his ledger that day he made the following
entry:--'Plundered, this 20th December 1854, by our worthy agent to
the marquis, because I voted for Smyth and the independence of the
borough.--J.B.'
The houses remained in the hands of the agent till the next election,
when Captain Bolton voted for Mr. Hogg, the office candidate.
The conscientious old gentleman--as good a conservative as Dean
Stannus--voted from principle in both cases and not to please the
agent or anyone else. The agent, however, thought proper to regard
it as a penitent act, and as the tenant had ceased to be naughty,
and had, it was assumed, shown proper deference to his political
superiors, he received his houses back again, retaining the possession
of them till his death. The profit rent of the houses is 20 l. a year.
Either this rent belonged to Captain Bolton or to Lord Hertfort. If
to Captain Bolton, by what right did Dean Stannus take it from him and
give it to the landlord? If to the landlord, by what right did Dean
Stannus take it from Lord Hertfort and give it to Captain Bolton?
However, the latter gentleman having no doubt whatever, first or last,
that the property was his own, bequeathed the houses to trustees
for the support of a school which he had established in Lisburn. The
school, it appears, had been placed in connection with the Church
Education Society, and as it did not go on to his satisfaction, he
placed it in connection with the National Board of Education, having
appointed as his trustees John Campbell, Esq., M.D., William Coulson,
Esq., and the Rev. W.J. Clarke, Presbyterian minister, all of Lisburn.
Dr. Campbell died soon after, and Mr. Coulson refused to act, so that
the burden of the trust fell upon Mr. Clarke, who felt it to be
his duty to carry it out to the best of his ability. Dean Stannus,
however, was greatly dissatisfied with the last will and testament of
Captain Bolton. Yet the dying man had no reason to anticipate that
his affectionate pastor would labour with all his might to abolish
the trust. Dean Stannus paid the captain a visit on his deathbed, and
while administering the consolations of religion he seemed moved
even to tears. To a friend who subsequently expressed doubt, the
simple-minded old Christian said: 'I will trust the dean that he will
do nothing in opposition to my will. He was here a few days ago and
wept over me. He loves me, and will carry out my wishes.' The captain
died in April, 1867. He was scarcely cold in his grave when the agent
of Lord Hertfort took proceedings to eject his trustees, and deprive
the schools of the property bequeathed for their support. Not content
with this, he took proceedings to get possession of the schoolhouse
also, deeming it a sufficient reason for this appropriation of another
man's property, this setting aside of a will, this abolition of
a trust, that, in his opinion, the schools ought to be under the
patronage of the rector, and in connection with the Church Education
Society. He had a perfect right to think and say this, and it might
be his conscientious conviction that the property would be thus better
employed; but he ought to know that the end does not sanctify the
means; that he had no right to substitute his own will for that of
Captain Bolton, and that he had no right to take advantage of the
absence of an act of parliament to possess himself of the rightful
property of other people. Unfortunately, too, he was a judge in his
own case, and he did not find it easy to separate the rector of the
parish from the agent of the estate. It is a significant fact that
when his son, Mr. Stannus, handed his power of attorney to Mr. Otway,
the assistant-barrister, that gentleman refused to look at it, saying,
'I have seen it one hundred times;' and the Rev. Mr. Clarke, while
waiting in the court for the case to come on, observed that all the
ejectment processes were at the suit of the Marquis of Hertfort. The
school-house was built by Mr. Bolton, at his own expense twenty-eight
years ago, and he maintained it till his death. The Rev. W.J. Clarke,
the acting trustee, bravely defended his trust and fought the battle
of tenant-right in the courts till driven out by the sheriff. He
was then called on to perform the same duty with regard to the
school-house. He has done it faithfully and well, and deserves the
sympathy of all the friends of freedom, justice, and fair dealing.
'I shall never accept a trust,' he says, in a letter to the _Northern
Whig_--'I shall never accept a trust, and permit any man, whether
nobleman, agent, or bailiff, to alienate that trust, without appealing
to the laws of my country; and if the one-sidedness of such laws shall
enable Dean and Mr. Stannus to confiscate this property, and turn
it from the purpose to which benevolence designed it, then, having
defended it to the last, I shall retire from the field satisfied that
I have done my duty to the memory of the dead and the educational
interests of the living.' Nor can we be surprised at the strong
language that he uses when he says: 'The history of the case rivals,
for blackness of persecution, anything that has happened in the north
of Ireland for many years. But such a course of conduct only recoils
on the heads of those who are guilty of it, and it shall be so in this
case. The Marquis of Hertfort will not live always, and the power of
public opinion may be able to reach his successor, and be felt even in
Lisburn.'
Dean Stannus, in his evidence before the Devon commission, stated that
only a small portion of the estate was held by lease. The leases were
obtained in a curious way. In 1823 a system of fining commenced. If a
tenant wanted a lease he was required to pay in cash a fine of 10 l.
an acre, which was equal to an addition of ten shillings an acre to
the rent for twenty years, not counting the interest on the money thus
sunk in the land. Yet, such was the desire of the tenants to have a
better security than the tenant-right custom, always acknowledged on
the estate, that 'every man who had money took advantage of it.' Mr.
Gregg, the seneschal of the manor, gave an illustration of the working
of this fining system. A tenant sold his farm of fourteen acres for
205 l., eight of the fourteen acres being held at will. The person who
bought the farm was obliged to take a lease of the eight acres, and
to pay a proportional fine in addition to the sum paid for the
tenant-right. Dean Stannus said 'he would wish to see the tenant-right
upheld upon the estate of Lord Hertfort, as it always had been. It is
that,' he said, 'which has kept up the properties in the north over
the properties in other parts of Ireland. It is a security for the
rent in the first instance, and reconciles the tenants to much of what
are called grievances. If you go into a minute calculation of
what they have expended, they are not more than paid for their
expenditure.' It transpired in the course of the examination that a
man who had purchased tenant-right, and paid a fine of 10 l. an acre
on getting a lease, would have to pay a similar fine over again when
getting the lease renewed. The result of these heavy advances was that
the middle-class farmers lived in constant pecuniary difficulties.
They were obliged to borrow money at six per cent. to pay the rent,
but they borrowed it under circumstances which made it nearly 40 per
cent., for it was lent by dealers in oatmeal and other things, from
whom they were obliged to purchase large quantities of goods at such a
high rate that they sold them again at a sacrifice of 33 per cent.
Mr. Joshua Lamb, another witness, stated that the effect of the fining
system had been to draw away a great deal of the accumulated capital
out of the hands of the tenantry, as well as their anticipated savings
for years to come, by which the carrying out of improved methods of
agriculture was prevented. Still, the existence of a lease for 31
years doubled the value of the tenant-right. This witness made a
remarkable statement. With respect to this custom he said: The 'effect
of this arrangement, when duly observed, is to prevent all disputes,
quarrels, burnings, and destruction of property, so common in those
parts of Ireland where this practice does not prevail. Indeed, so
fully are farmers aware of this, that very few, except the most
reckless, would venture on taking a farm without obtaining the
outgoing tenant's "good-will." Such a proceeding as taking land
"over a man's head," as it is termed, is regarded here as not merely
dishonourable, but as little better than robbery, and as such held
in the greatest detestation.' He added that the justice of this
arrangement was obvious--'because all the buildings, planting, and
other improvements, being entirely at the tenant's expense, he has a
certain amount of capital sunk in the property, for which, if he
parts with the place, he expects to be repaid by the sale of the
tenant-right. He knew no case in the county in which the tenant, or
those from whom he purchased, had made no improvements.'
The first marquis occasionally visited the estate, and was proud of
the troops of yeomanry and cavalry which had been raised from his
tenantry. The second marquis, who died in 1822, was only once in
that part of Ireland. The third marquis--he of Prince Regent
notoriety--never set foot on the property; and the present, who has
been reigning over 140 townlands for nearly thirty years, has never
been among his subjects except during a solitary visit of three weeks
in October, 1845, when, it is said, he came to qualify for his ribbon
(K.G.) that he might be able to say to the prime minister that he
was a resident landlord. He has resided almost entirely in Paris,
cultivating the friendship of Napoleon instead of the welfare of the
people who pay him a revenue of 60,000 l. a year. Bagatelle, his
Paris residence, has, it is said, absorbed Irish rents in its
'improvements', till it has been made worth three quarters of a
million sterling. If the residence cost so much, fancy may try to
conceive the amount of hard-earned money squandered on the luxuries
and pleasures of which it is the temple--the most Elysian spot in the
Elysian fields.
The following curious narrative appeared in a Belfast newspaper, and
was founded on a speech made by Dean Stannus at a public meeting.
The venerable Dean of Ross and his son, Mr. W.T. Stannus, had been
deputed to go to Paris to wait on Lord Hertfort, and urge him to
assist in the expense of finishing the Antrim Junction Railway. The
dean is in his eighty-first year; fifty-one years of his life have
been spent in the management of the Hertfort estate, and whatever
difference of opinion may exist as to his arrangements with the
tenantry, every one who knows anything of the affair must admit that
there never existed a more faithful representative of a landowner. On
arriving in Paris he found the marquis ill, so much so that neither
the dean nor his son could get an interview. For three days the
venerable gentleman danced attendance on his chief, and on Monday the
fourth attempt was made, the dean sent up his name, and had a reply
that 'the marquis was too ill to see anyone.' Next day, however, the
marquis condescended to receive his agent, and the subject of the
railway was introduced. The dean told him that Lord Erne had given
200,000 l. towards the railway projects on his property--that Lords
Lucan, Annesley, and Lifford had contributed largely, and that Lord
Downshire had been exceedingly liberal in promoting lines on his
estate. But all was vain. The noble absentee, who drains about 60,000
l. a year from his Irish property, and who often pays 5,000 l. for
a picture, refused to lend 15,000 l. to aid in finishing a railway,
which runs for three-fourths of the mileage through his own estate.
During the interview Mr. W.T. Stannus urged on the marquis that the
investment would be the best that could be made, as preference shares
paying five per cent. would be allocated to him as security for the
amount. All arguments and entreaties, however, were lost on the noble
invalid. Even the appeal of the old gentleman who, for more than half
a century, had managed the estate so advantageously for the successive
owners of that splendid property, was made in vain. 'You never refused
me anything before,' urged the dean, 'and I go away in very bad
spirits.' What a wonderful history lies in this episode of Irish
landlordism. Here is an unmarried nobleman whose income from
investments in British and French securities is said to exceed 30,000
l. a year, besides the immense revenue of his English and Irish
estates, and yet he refuses to part with 15,000 l. towards aiding in
the construction of a railway on his own property.