TENANT-RIGHT IN ARMAGH.
Among the undertakers in the county of Armagh were the two Achesons,
Henry and Archibald, ancestors of Lord Gosford, who founded Market
Hill, Richard Houlston, John Heron, William Stanbowe, Francis
Sacheverell, John Dillon, John Hamilton, Sir John Davis, Lord Moore,
Henry Boucher, Anthony Smith, Lieutenant Poyntz, and Henry M'Shane
O'Neill.
In connection with each of these settlements Pynar uses the phrase,
'I find planted and estated.' What he means is more fully explained
in his reference to the precinct of Fews, allotted to Scottish
undertakers, where Henry Acheson had obtained 1,000 acres. The
surveyor says: 'I find a great number of tenants on this land: but not
any that have any estates but by promise, and yet they have been many
years upon the land. There are nominated to me two freeholders and
seventeen leaseholders, all which were with me, and took the oath of
supremacy, and petitioned unto me that they might have their leases,
the which Mr. Acheson seemed to be willing to perform it unto them
presently. These are able to make thirty men with arms. Here is great
store of tillage.' The whole of the reports indicate that the Crown
required of the undertakers two things. First, that they should
themselves reside on the land, that they should build strong houses,
fortified with bawns, and keep a certain number of armed men for
the defence of the settlement. Secondly, that the English and Scotch
settlers who were expected to reclaim the land and build houses, were
to have 'estates' in their farms, either as freeholders or lessees.
The grants were made to the undertakers on these conditions--they
should be resident, and they should have around them a number of
independent yeomanry to defend the king when called upon to do so.
Everything connected with the plantation gives the idea of permanent
tenures for the settlers. A curious fact is mentioned about Sir John
Davis, who had been so active in bringing about the plantation. He
obtained a grant for 500 acres. 'Upon this,' says Pynar, 'there is
nothing at all built, nor so much as an English tenant on the land.'
It seems his tenants were all of the class for whose extirpation
he pleaded, as weeds that would choke the Saxon crop. Henry M'Shane
O'Neill got 1,000 acres at Camlagh, 'but he being lately dead, it was
in the hands of Sir Toby Caulfield, who intended to do something upon
it, for as yet there was nothing built.' Sir Toby was the ancestor of
the Earl of Charlemont, always one of the best landlords in Ulster.
It is gratifying to find that both the undertakers and the original
tenants are still fairly represented--a considerable number of the
former having founded noble houses, and the latter having multiplied
and enriched the land to such an extent that, though the population
is dense and the farms are generally very small, they are the most
prosperous and contented population in the kingdom. Leases were common
in this county at the close of the last century, but the terms were
short--twenty-one years and one life. Some had leases for thirty-one
years or three lives, and there were some perpetuities. Land was
then so valuable that when a small estate came into the market--large
estates hardly ever did--they brought from twenty-five to thirty
years' purchase. The large tracts of church land, which are now among
the richest and most desirable in the country, presented at the
close of the last century, a melancholy contrast to the farms that
surrounded them. The reason is given by Sir Charles Coote. It is most
instructive and suggestive at the present time. He says, 'It is very
discouraging for a wealthy farmer to have anything to do with church
lands, as his improvements cannot even be secured to him during his
own life, or the life of his landlord, but he may at any time be
deprived of the fruits of his industry, by the incumbent changing his
living, as his interest then terminates.' This evil was remedied first
by making the leases renewable, on the payment of fines, and, in our
own time, an act was passed enabling the tenants to convert their
leaseholds into perpetuities. The consequence is, that the church
lands now present some of the finest features in the social landscape,
occupied by a class of resident gentry, an essential link, in any
well-organised society, between the people and the great proprietors.
The Board of Trinity College felt so strongly the necessity of giving
fixed tenures, if permanent improvements were to be effected on their
estates, that, without waiting for a general measure of land reform,
they obtained, in 1861, a private act of parliament giving them power
to grant leases for ninety-nine years. 'The legislature,' says Dr.
Hancock, 'thus gave partial effect in the case of one institution to
the recommendation which the Land Occupation Commissioners intended to
apply to all estates in the hands of public boards in Ireland.'
Armagh was always free from middlemen. The landlord got what Sir
Charles Coote calls a rack rent from the occupying tenant, and it
was his interest to divide rather than consolidate farms, because the
linen trade enabled the small holder to give a high rent, while
the custom of tenant-right furnished an unfailing security for its
payment.
The country, when seen from an elevation, is one continuous patchwork
of corn, potatoes, clover, and other artificial grasses. Wonders
are wrought in the way of productiveness by rotation of crops and
house-feeding. Cattle are not only fattened much more rapidly than on
the richest grazing land, but large quantities of the best manure are
produced by the practice of house-feeding. The more northern portions
of the county, bordering on Down and Lough Neagh, and along the banks
of the rivers Bann and Blackwater, are naturally rich, and have been
improved to the highest degree by ages of skilful cultivation. But
other parts, particularly the barony of Fews, embracing the high
lands stretching to the Newry mountains, and bordering on the County
Monaghan, were, about the close of the last century, nearly all
covered with heather, and absolutely waste. Sir Charles Coote
remarked, in 1804, that it had been then undergoing reclamation.
Within the last fifteen years the land had doubled in value, and was
set at the average rate of 16 s. an acre. Mr. Tickell, referring to
this county, remarked that the Scotch and English settlers chiefly
occupied the lowland districts, and that the natives retired to this
poor region, retaining their old language and habits; and he was
occasionally obliged to swear interpreters where witnesses or parties
came from the Fews, which were 'very wild, and very unlike other parts
of the county of Armagh.'
Now let us see what the industry of the people has done in that wild
district. The farms are very small, say from three to ten English
acres. They have been so well drained, cleared, sub-soiled, and
manured, that the occupier is able to support on one acre as many
cattle as on three acres when grazed; while affording profitable
employment to the women and children. Great labour has been bestowed
in taking down crooked and broad fences. Every foot of ground is
cultivated with the greatest care, and in the mountain districts,
patches of land among rocks, inaccessible to horses, are tilled by the
hand. In many cases in the less exposed districts, two crops in the
year are obtained from the same ground, viz., winter tares followed by
turnips or cabbages, and rape followed by tares, potatoes, turnips,
or cabbages. These crops are succeeded by grain or flax the next year,
with which clover is sown for mowing and stall-feeding, yielding two
or three cuttings. The green crops are so timed as to give a full
supply for house-feeding throughout the year. Nothing is neglected by
those skilful and thrifty farmers; the county is famous for orchards,
and when I was in the city of Armagh, last autumn, I saw in the market
square almost as many loads of apples as of potatoes.
The connection of large grazing farms with pauperism, as cause and
effect, has not received sufficient attention from the friends
of social progress. I resolved last year to test this matter by a
comparison. We have at present no check upon the legally enforced
depopulation of this country except the _interest_ of the landlords,
or what they imagine to be their interest. It is well that the
question should be determined whether it is really for the benefit
of the owners of the land that they should clear it of Christians and
occupy it with cattle--in other words, whether Christians or cattle
will pay more rent and taxes. I omit all higher considerations,
because some of the most philanthropic and enlightened defenders of
the present land system have defended it on this low ground. In order
to make the test complete and unexceptionable, I have selected a
comparatively poor district for tillage, and one of the richest I
could find for grazing, giving all possible natural advantages to
Scullyism. But the test would not be fair unless the occupiers of the
poorer land had a tolerably secure tenure so long as they paid the
highest rent that a reasonable agent could impose. I thought also that
possible objections would be obviated if the tenantry were destitute
of 'the fostering care of a resident landlord.' Therefore, instead
of selecting the tenants of Lord Downshire, or Lord Roden, or Lord
Dufferin, I have fixed upon the tenants of Lord Kilmorey, because he
and the producers of the rents which he enjoys have never seen
one another in the flesh, and they have never received one word of
encouragement or instruction from him in the whole course of their
lives. Accordingly, with the Union of Kilkeel, which comprises the
Mourne district, I have compared the Union of Trim, which comprises
some of the richest grazing land in Ireland. Travellers have noted
that population always grows thick on rich lands, while it is sparse
on poor lands. No one requires to be told the reason of this.
The Unions of Kilkeel and Trim have populations very nearly
equal--viz., Kilkeel, 22,614; Trim, 22,918. The total arable land in
Kilkeel is 50,000 statute acres, giving 2 1/3 acres on an average
for each person, and 14 acres for each holding. Trim contains 119,519
statute acres, giving 5 acres to each person, and 42 to each holding.
In Mourne the area of land under crops is 20,904 acres (nearly half),
giving one acre of tillage to each inhabitant, and 6 acres to each
holding of 14 acres. In Trim the area under crops is 38,868 acres,
giving 2 acres for each inhabitant, and 14 for each holding of 42
acres.
The significance of these figures is shown by the Government valuation
in 1867. The valuation of Mourne Union is 40,668 l., the average for
each person being 2 l. and for each holding 11 l. The valuation of
Trim is 109,068 l., allowing 5 l. for each person and 38 l. for each
holding. In other words, the capability of the land of Trim to support
population is as five to two when compared with Mourne; but whereas
in Mourne 2 1/3 acres support one person, in Trim it takes 5 acres
to support one person--about double the quantity. As the value of the
land in Meath is more than double what it is in Mourne, each acre in
Meath ought to maintain its man. That is, if Meath were cultivated
like Down, its population ought to be _five times as large as it is_!
But this is not the whole case. The Mourne population may be too
large. With so many families crowded on such a small tract of poor
land, the Union must be overwhelmed with pauperism. If so, the case
for tenant-right and tillage would fall to the ground, and Scullyism
would be triumphant. Let us see, then, how stands this essential fact.
The number of paupers in the workhouse and receiving outdoor relief in
the Union of Trim, in 1866, was 2,474. This large amount of pauperism
is not peculiar to Trim. It belongs to other Unions of this rich
grazing district, which so fully realises the late Lord Carlisle's
ideal of Irish prosperity. Navan Union has 3,820 paupers, and Kells
has 1,306. Now, the population of Trim and Mourne being nearly the
same, and Trim being twice as rich as Mourne, and not half as thickly
peopled, it follows that Mourne ought to have at least four times as
many paupers as Trim--that is, it ought to have 9,896. But it actually
has only 521 persons receiving relief in and out of the workhouse!
Consequently, Scullyism and grazing produce nearly twenty times the
amount of poverty and misery produced by tenant-right and tillage.
I have not overlooked the difference of race and religion. On the
contrary, they were uppermost in my mind when rambling among the
nice, clean, comfortable, orderly homesteads of Mourne, reminding me
strongly of Forth and Bargy in the county Wexford. I said to the owner
and driver of my car, who is a Roman Catholic, 'Do the Roman
Catholics here keep their houses and farms in as nice order as the
Presbyterians?' He answered, 'Why should they not? Are they not the
same flesh and blood?'
According to the census of 1861, the Roman Catholics greatly outnumber
the Protestants in this Union. The exact figures are:--
Total population of Mourne Union 22,614
Protestants of all denominations 8,080
Roman Catholics 14,534
The result of this comparison may perhaps make a better impression
on the reader's mind if cast in the form of tables, as given on
succeeding page.
Table Headings:
Col A. Population in 1861
Col B. No. of Holdings in 1864
Col C. Total Area (in Stat. Acres)
Col D. Area under Crops, 1864 (in Stat. Acres)
Col E. Valuation in 1807 (in £)
Col F. No. in Workhouse and receiving Out-door Relief
Col G. Protestants of all denominations
Col H. Roman Catholics
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
TENANT-RIGHT AND TILLAGE.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Names of Unions | A. | B. | C. | D. | E. | F. | G. | H.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kilkeel |22,614| 3,540| 50,000|20,904| 40,668| 521 |8,080|14,534
Average for each| | | | | | | |
person | | | 2-1/2 | 1 | 2 | | |
Average for each| | | | | | | |
holding | | | 14 | 6 | 11 | | |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
LARGE FARMS AND GRAZING.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trim |22,918| 2,816|119,519|38,867|109,068|2,474|1,700|21,218
Average for each| | | | | | | |
person | | | 5 | 2 | 5 | | |
Average for each| | | | | | | |
person | | | 42 | 14 | 38 | | |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Kilkeel Union there were 4,012 acres of flax in 1864, which at 20
l. an acre would produce 80,000 l., considerably more than the rental
of the entire district. Trim, in that year, produced only 78 acres of
flax.
What everyone wants to know now is this--whether any measure can be
devised that will satisfy the cultivators of the soil without wronging
the landlords, or militating against the interests of the state. A
measure that will not satisfy the tenants and put an end to their
discontent, would be manifestly useless. It would be but adding to the
numerous legislative abortions that have gone before it. A man engaged
in such enquiries as this, is to ascertain what will satisfy the
people. It is for the legislature to determine whether it can be
rightly or safely granted. I have, therefore, directed my attention to
this point in particular, and I have ascertained beyond question, from
the best possible sources of information, that nothing will satisfy
the people of this country but what they do not hesitate to name with
the most determined emphasis--'Fixity of Tenure.' Whether they are
Protestants or Catholics, Orangemen or Liberals, Presbyterians or
Churchmen, this is their unanimous demand, the cry in which they all
join to a man. Every case in which tenant-right is disregarded, or in
which, while admitted nominally, an attempt is made to evade it, or
to fritter it away, excites the bitterest feeling, in which the whole
community sympathises.
They deny, however, that the existing tenant-right is a sufficient
security:--
Because it depends on the option of the landlord, and cannot be
enforced by law.
Because even the best disposed landlord may be influenced to alter his
policy by the advice of an agent, by the influence of his family, or
by the state of his finances.
Because a good landlord, who knows the tenants and cares for them, may
be succeeded by a son who is a 'fast young man,' addicted to the
turf and overwhelmed in debt, while the estate gets into the hands of
usurers.
Because in such a case the law affords no protection to the property
of the tenant, which his family may have been accumulating on the
land since the first of them came over from England or Scotland,
and settled around their commander, after helping by their swords to
conquer the country, and preserve it to the crown of England.
Because it is not in human nature to avoid encroaching on the rights
and property of others, if it can be done at will--done legally, and
done under the pretext that it is necessary for 'improvement,' and
will be a benefit even to those who are despoiled.
Because the custom is no protection to a man's political rights as
a British subject. No tenant farmer can vote against his landlord in
obedience to his conscience without the risk of ruining his family.
The greater his interest in the land, the larger his investments,
the heavier his stake; the greater his accumulations in his bank--the
farm--the greater will be his dependence, the more complete
his political bondage. He has the more to lose. Therefore, if a
Conservative, he must vote for a Radical or a Catholic, who would pull
down the Church Establishment; or if a Catholic, he must vote for a
'No-popery' candidate, who ignores tenant-right, and against a
Liberal statesman, whose life has been devoted to the interests of the
country.
It appears to me that the difficulty of settling this question is
much aggravated by the importation of opinions from the United States
hostile to the aristocracy; and as this source of discontent and
distrust is likely to increase every year, the sooner the settlement
is effected the better. What is the use of scolding and reviling the
tenant's advocates? Will that weaken one iota the tremendous force of
social discontent--the bitter sense of legal injustice, with which
the legislature must deal? And will the legislature deal with it more
effectually by shutting its eyes to facts?