E-Book
7 Tage kostenlos im Abo
E-Book
5,99 €

The Irish Question E-Book

David Bennett King

0,0

Erhalten Sie Zugang zu diesem und mehr als 300000 Büchern ab EUR 5,99 monatlich.

Herausgeber: Jazzybee Verlag
Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
Sprache: Englisch

Beschreibung

Professor King's book on the Irish question is by far the best book on the difficult subject for practical use. It is not a treatise undertaking to settle the whole trouble at once; it suggests no theory and offers no panacea, but simply states the case and the condition of affairs as the author found them. This is done succinctly and intelligently, and the work is, therefore, of great value to those who desire accurate and unbiased information with regard to Irish affairs.

Details

Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:

Android

iOS

von Legimi
zertifizierten E-Readern

Kindle™-E-Readern
(für ausgewählte Pakete)

Seitenzahl: 641

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2024

Das E-Book (TTS) können Sie hören im Abo „Legimi Premium” in Legimi-Apps auf:

Android

iOS

Bewertungen

0,0

Rezensionen(0 Rezensionen)

Leseprobe

The Irish Question

DAVID BENNETT KING

The Irish Question, D. B. King

Jazzybee Verlag Jürgen Beck

86450 Altenmünster, Loschberg 9

Deutschland

ISBN: 9783988680693

www.jazzybee-verlag.de

[email protected]

CHAPTER I.

THE Irish Question is centuries old and has long puzzled the wisest statesman of England. It has changed. in form somewhat from century to century and from generation to generation. During the present century the agitation for the repeal of the Union or for Home Rule, or separation, has been constantly maintained. by one party or another. Besides this general question of Home Rule or independence, other special subjects have claimed the attention of the people, and there have been violent agitations for the removal of specific grievances. For a time, Catholic Emancipation was the great war - cry of the mass of the Irish people. That accomplished, war was declared against tithes. When the tithe war ended the land reform became the burning question. It is around this that most of the agitation and discussion, the strife and bloodshed have centered during the past few years. In any presentation of the Irish question as it now exists, the land customs and laws must have a prominent place.

A large part of the land of Ireland is owned by a few persons. There are in all in the island a little. more than 20,000,000 acres. In 1876 there were altogether 68,711 owners of land. 3,746 of these owned 15,799,837 acres, while 744 owned more than half the island. The largest estate is that of Mr. Richard Berridge, which contains 169,836 acres. Two other estates, those of Lord Conyngham and Lord Downshire, contain more than 100,000 acres each. On the other hand, there are a very large number of the owners - considerably more than one half - whose estates are less than one acre. The following table, taken from returns presented to the House of Commons, August 10, 1876, and published in Thom's Official Directory, shows the number and extent of the Irish estates:

The obstacles in the way of buying and selling land— the laws of primogeniture and entail, and the trouble and expense of looking up titles and making surveys and transfers—have been so great that until recently very little land has been in the market, and it was well nigh impossible to increase the number of proprietors and effect that general distribution of land that is found so beneficial in this and other countries. We are so accustomed in this country to think of cheap and easy modes of dealing in land that it is hard for us to understand the nature of the obstacles that have been in the way of buying and selling land in Ireland. Much of the land could not be sold at all on account of the entail. Land that could be sold was often so bound up by settlements, encumbrances, quit rents, and mortgages, that its sale was a difficult matter. The titles and interests of numbers of people had to be looked after and guarded. The difficulty of making out a clear title to the property was very great. The expense connected with the proceedings, the lawyers' fees, the cost of surveys and maps, and the tax on the sale by the government were something rather appalling to the purchaser. Where a man wanted to buy a small farm he found the expense and trouble a very large item indeed. The result was that under the old system very little land changed owners in the market. This inability to purchase land even where they had the money, has been regarded by the Irish people as a great grievance. "It was long the policy of the English," they say, "to root out the Irish from the soil. The effect of the English land system still is to keep us out of the ownership of the soil." It often happened that the landlord was so deeply in debt that he could not possibly make any improvements on his estate, and was compelled to extort every penny he could get of rent from his wretched tenants, regardless of any real or fancied interests they may have had in their holdings. If he could have sold his estate, or a portion of it, relief would have been given to his creditors, to himself and to his tenants.

After the great famine of 1847, it was found that many of the landlords were more deeply in debt than ever. Rents could not be collected. In some districts the poor rates had reached twenty shillings to the pound. The landlords had, in not a few cases, contributed largely to the relief of the starving people. A large number of estates representing probably one tenth of the total rental of lands in Ireland were under receivers in the courts of equity. If many of the landlords used the occasion afforded by the ravages of famine and disease to clear their estates of small holders, the government resolved to take the same opportunity to clear off some of the bankrupt landlords. Accordingly, the Encumbered Estates Court was established in 1848, with the power to order the sale of property encumbered by indebtedness on the petition of the creditors, and to give a simple indefeasible title, all statutes, settlements and covenants to the contrary notwithstanding. The first petition of sale was filed October 21st, 1849, and was followed in quick succession by many others. Creditors forced their debtors' property upon a market that, owing to the depression caused by the famine, would have been poor at thebest. Prices fell often to less than half what they were a few years before. Many an old family estate that would have brought enough in better times to have paid the debts, and left a handsome competence to the old owner, was barely able to satisfy the claims of the creditors. The native Irish landlords, the jolly, hospitable, happy - go - lucky squireens who cared more for sport than finance, were most affected by it as they were often most deeply in debt. There was not a little bitterness against the government for passing the measure at the time, when so many landlords were on the brink of ruin. However, it brought land into the market, and notwithstanding the many hardships that often attended its operations was a step in the right direction. It is estimated that one - eighth of the land of Ireland has changed hands through the operations of this and the Landed Estates Courts to which its proceedings were transferred. The sales have, however, been diminishing in recent years. Several thousand small owners have been added by the sales made under the Disestablishment Act and the Land Act of 1870. Of these and the purchasers under the Bright clauses of 1870 and 1881 I shall have something to say in another chapter.

Notwithstanding the removal of the obstacles in the way of transfer in these and some other instances, it is still in most cases very troublesome, often impossible to buy land in Ireland.

The owners of about one - half the land do not live on or near their estates, while the owners of about one fourth do not live in the country. In this country no one questions the landlord's right to live where he pleases. In Ireland it is very different. I have often heard tenants complain bitterly that their landlords were always absent and did not care for the country or people. "What difference does it make where he lives?" I have asked. "There's a great deal more going on, sir, when he's here," was the reply.

Absenteeism is an old evil, and in very early times. received attention from the government. Laws were enacted at a very early period to compel the absentees to return. Henry VIII confiscated the estates of those who were unable or unwilling to discharge their duties as landlords. "English noblemen who owned lands in Ireland were required to reside on and maintain them. The rights of property were made stringently conditional as the fulfillment of the obligations."

These and other like provisions to the same effect were for the most part fruitless. The evil seems to have increased when the confiscations of Elizabeth and Cromwell took place, and large estates fell into the hands of Englishmen. The surpassing beauty of the Irish scenery, the fertility of the soil in many places, and the healthfulness of the climate make Ireland a very desirable place of residence. But it often happened that the new landlords had land or business that demanded their constant presence at home in England. The turbulence of the people, the frequent revolts and occasional massacres, the hostility to the English and the generally unsettled state of the country often made it an unsafe place for the family of an English landlord. In the rebellion, which drove the poet, Spenser, from his home at Kilcolman Castle, "every son of a Saxon" was compelled to flee for his life. In some periods the Irish were held in the greatest possible contempt by the English, some of whom preferred not to come in contact with them under any circumstances.

The difference in race, rank, wealth, religion and social culture between the English landlord and the Irish tenantry, made Ireland less attractive to the former as a place of residence. Then the dreadful poverty and wretchedness so often seen in some parts of the country, are too sad for sensitive minds to look upon or live in the midst of without great suffering. Those who can not pass through the poorer parts of a large city, or look into an almshouse, or at a beggar without a feeling of melancholy, could not find some of the most beautiful parts of Ireland pleasant places of residence.

Irish writers have attributed many of the evils which have afflicted Ireland to absenteeism. Prior, writing in 1730, speaks of absenteeism as the "principal source of all our misfortunes and the chief cause of all ourdistress. It appears plainly from the list of absentees, and the estimates of the quantity of specie they may be reasonably supposed to draw yearly out of the kingdom that no other country labors under so wasteful a drain of its treasure as Ireland does at present, by an annual remittance of above £600,000 to our gentlemen abroad without the least consideration or value returned for the same; this is so great a burden upon us that I believe there is not in history an instance of any one country paying so large a yearly tribute to another."

In 1797 Mr. Vandeleur, in supporting a resolution to tax absentees, declared that "all the disturbances which had taken place there, which had disgraced its character and checked its growth, have been found on the lands of absentees." "A tax which would compel land owners to return to their duties would do more to tranquilize Ireland than all the repressive laws which Parliament could devise." Numerous other writers add their testimony to the same effect.

Some of the disadvantages to the community arising from the absence of the more wealthy and intelligent classes are apparent to everyone. Unless the landlord is utterly poverty - stricken or very unenterprising, “there is a great deal more going on" when he is in the country. He gives employment to quite a number of people. Servants to take care of the house, grooms, gardeners, and men of all work are needed to keep up a large establishment. These people who would otherwise be idle can earn good wages which they spend in the neighborhood, buying better clothing and food for their families, articles of furniture for their houses, or put in circulation in a variety of other ways. Business flourishes from what the servants spend, and also from the landlord's expenditures. The shopkeepers have larger sales and keep better articles and can afford to sell at lower prices. There is a better market for the butter, eggs, and vegetables, which the poor people raise but cannot themselves afford to eat. If the landlords do not buy these articles, the roads and means of transportation are likely to be better, and markets easier of access, for the landlord is almost certain to travel about and to take a greater interest in means of transportation than an agent who represents him temporarily.

The enterprising landlord is likely to introduce improved agricultural implements, better breeds of cattle, better methods of farming. On Mr. Mitchell Henry's place at Keylemore I saw the best sort of farm implements, although the neighbors for many miles around use farm machinery of the crudest and most primitive kind. Larger enterprises are undertaken by these men of wealth and intelligence. The postal facilities are likely to be much better where people of education and social standing live, and there are letters and papers constantly arriving. Even the poorest people are in the end much benefited by good. postal facilities. Then educational matters are greatly advanced by the presence of families of literary and social culture, as are those of many of the landlords. When churches are to be built, or money is to be raised for other public or charitable purposes, the wealthy men of the community are naturally the ones to take the lead in making contributions. Those who see the distress are more likely to be moved by it. The whole social character of a district is elevated by the presence in it of a few families of wealth and social culture.

One of the worst features of absenteeism is the fact that it is most common in some of the poorest parts of Ireland. In some of the poor Western counties more than half the land is owned by absentees. From one of these very poor counties nearly half a million dollars are taken away by absentees every year. Where there are good roads to good markets, or railway stations are convenient and produce and labor can be easily taken to a fair market, the disadvantages of absenteeism are nothing like so great as where the people live thirty or forty miles from a railway station and have no good market within reach. A few wealthy and enterprising landlords living in Galway or Mayo would greatly extend the very meagre railway facilities and improve the markets as well.

"I have known," says Mr. Tuke, "poultry eaten as the cheapest animal food for the poor, and turbot as the cheapest fish, while eggs were selling at the rate of 8d. or 10d. per score, in the depth of winter in the northwest counties, though worth 11⁄2d. and 2d. each in Dublin or Liverpool. More than half the population of Donegal, Mayo, Galway and other districts are practically out of reach of any railways for their produce." While it obviously would not pay to build a railway to every man's door, there is no doubt that the presence of a few more men of wealth, intelligence and enterprise in these counties would do much for their development.

Here there is often no difference in rank and social standing between landlord and tenant. In Ireland, however, the landlord, particularly the absentee, represents the conqueror. He is "an alien by birth and race." If he lived regularly in the country and identified himself with its interests, he would do something, perhaps much, to bridge over the great gulf that separates the two classes. It must not be supposed that the estates of absentee landlords always present a forlorn and neglected appearance, or that the tenants are always charged exorbitant rents. On the contrary, on some of the largest estates owned by Englishmen who live in England the tenants are comfortable and the rents reasonable, while some of the smaller resident landlords, unscrupulous or deeply in debt, extort the last penny they can get from the wretched tenantry.

While there are these exceptions to the rule, I am convinced that absenteeism is a great disadvantage to the country and the people, particularly in view of the absence of almost all industrial enterprises except farming, and of the generally backward condition of the country and the people. It is too much to attribute to it all the evils that have been set down to its charge. It is, however, an important consideration that the people regard it as a great grievance; and think the twenty - five or thirty million of dollars paid every year to these landlords, who are rarely or never in Ireland, is a tax grievous to be borne.

The recent violent agitation has made it much more unpleasant even for good landlords to live in Ireland. The tenants are less cordial and friendly, the game, which was formerly a great attraction, is now often interfered with, or the hunting boycotted, and the landlord is in constant apprehension of trouble. Even the best of landlords are not always safe. In August 1882, I got belated and stopped at the castle of a landlord to spend the night. The castle was closed at dusk, as though an enemy were expected. The owner had frequently been threatened, and it was necessary for him constantly to be on his guard against being shot. He evidently did not find his delightfully situated home a very pleasant place of residence, but he was loth to leave the country.

The recent land law has taken away some of the powers formerly belonging to the landlords and may have the effect of increasing absenteeism for a time. The abolition of the law of entail and the simplification and cheapening of modes of transferring land would probably diminish the evil by enabling those who do not wish to live in the country to sell, and those who desire to live on the land to buy.

In some cases the landlords rent the land directly to the occupying tenants. In others considerable tracts have been leased for long periods, sometimes in perpetuity, to persons who sublet to others. Sometimes the latter sublet in turn. In the early part of the last century this custom of granting long leases, and of subletting over and over again became quite common. Sometimes the actual working tenant was five or six removes from the landlord. Each of the landlords had a share in the rent. The middlemen are described by Irish writers as generally “idle, dissolute, and extravagant," and as lording it over the tenantry, as a slave owner rules his slaves. The tenants often complained bitterly of having to pay so many rents. I have been told of cases where the lease holder has agreed to pay a pound a year per acre, and sublets on the condition that the tenant pays the pound an acre to the landlord, and a pound an acre to himself. In cases of this kind the tenant complains that he pays two rents. Even if a tenant has only a small tract, he often sublets portions of it to others.

The middlemen were much more likely to be severe in their exactions than the chief landlords. An extra shilling or two to the acre increased the middleman's income in a much greater proportion than it would have increased the landlord's, had he received all the rent. In like manner if the crops failed, and the middleman threw off five shillings from a rent of twenty - five shillings, of which he paid fifteen to the landlord, he would give up one - half of his income, while if the rent of twenty - five shillings were paid to the landlord directly, the landlord would only relinquish one - fifth of his income by throwing off five shillings. It was therefore natural that middlemen should charge higher rents and be more exacting in making collections than the landlords who let directly to the tenants. The middlemen too were generally of a harder type than the landlords; they had no permanent interest in the country and cared little for its improvement. The great fall of rents in 1818, and in the famine times of '47, broke up many of them. The custom of subletting was discouraged by legislation and has been to a considerable degree abandoned. It exists, however, and is found chiefly on lands leased for lives renewable forever. I once talked with a tenant whose immediate landlord was a middleman, apparently of the hardest type. The tenant had agreed to pay an almost impossible rent when prices were high and times. good. The middleman was making a very handsome income with little or no trouble, and the tenant thought that in view of the hard times he ought to have some abatement. The middleman thought otherwise, and the tenant was very emphatic in his expressions of indignation.

In many cases where the occupying tenants hold directly of the landlord, an agent is employed who has charge of the whole business of fixing and collecting the rents and managing the estate. He has bailiffs or assistants who are sometimes termed "drivers" by the people, because at one time an important part of their duty consisted in distraining for rent, driving off the cattle. The land agents have been the objects of a vast amount of abuse. Some of the most startling murders have been those of agents I heard an Irishman say a few months ago, "The old class of agents will soon all be out of the country. The sooner they get out the better. If need be, they ought to be shot out." In some cases, the abuse is no doubt deserved. If the absentee landlord takes but little interest in the land and people, the agent, who is also sometimes an absentee, only visiting the estate two or three times a year, is often still more remote from the interests of the people, and unfamiliar with their customs and feelings. With no permanent interest in the land, he is likely to care less than the landlord for the people who live on it. His chief duty is to collect the rent, and as much of it as possible. He usually gets a percentage of the rent. His tenure of office and his pay alike often depend on his success in transmitting the desired sums to his chief. "If he sees a bit of bacon in the tenant's kitchen, he takes it as a sign that the tenant is prospering and can pay more rent," is the way I have heard the proceedings of some of the agents described.

It must be remembered that the agent's duties are often odious in their character. Where there is any opposition to the payment of rent, the agent often has to bear the brunt of it. Good agents undoubtedly there are, although I have heard Irishmen assert that they didn't think "there ever was a good agent." Mr. Vernon, one of the Land Commissioners, was for many years Lord Pembroke's agent, collecting rents amounting to half a million dollars annually. He is generally recognized as a remarkably fair - minded man, and his appointment as Land Commissioner was received with much favor by the tenants who knew him. He has for some time been greatly interested in having the tenants, where they are at all prosperous, become the owners of their farms. There are other exceptions also. One naturally hears most of the extreme cases where the agents are most unpopular.

It is of course necessary to have, particularly where there are a large number of tenants, certain rules of the estate. These are sometimes applied so as to produce a good deal of complaint, even where the rules themselves are reasonable. An instance is related where the rule that two families should not live in the same house - under most circumstances, since the houses are very small in many parts of Ireland, a very good rule was so applied as to turn an old woman out of her holding and home which she had occupied for fifty years, because she took her daughter, whose husband was dead, to live with her. Instances are related where tenants were compelled to pay a fine of half a year's rent "for giving lodging to a brother - in - law, a daughter, or other connection or relative," contrary to the rule of the estate which forbade the lodging or harboring of a stranger. In cases of eviction great suffering has sometimes occurred in consequence of this rule. On one estate the tenants were forbidden to marry without the agent's permission. Two young people however, resolved to marry in spite of the prohibition of the agent. "The two fathers - in - law were punished for harboring their son and daughter - in - law by the fine of a gale of rent, and the couple had ultimately to fly to America."

These instances will show the great power that has sometimes been exercised by landlords. This power has been rapidly decreasing of late years. The spread of intelligence and of ideas of freedom and independence and the new legislation have made great changes.

CHAPTER II.

COMPARATIVELY few, even of the resident proprietors, farm their own land. It is said that not more than one - eighth of the land in Ireland is farmed by "resident proprietors and yeomen." The remainder is rented often in very small lots. The average size of these farms or holdings has been increasing during the last forty years. In 1880 there were in all Ireland 574,222 holdings. Of these 276,240, or nearly one half the entire number, were less than fifteen acres, while 412, 750 were below thirty acres. The following table compiled from statistics taken from Thom's Official Directory will show at a glance the numbers of holdings of different sizes at different periods:

It will be observed that notwithstanding the decrease in the population of the country and in the entire number of holdings, the number of those above thirty acres has considerably increased. This change is due to the consolidation of holdings, and to the tendency to turn land formerly tilled into grazing farms.

Many of the holdings are too small and poor to support families decently. It is said that one - half the tenants do not pay on an average more than £6 rent annually. A large number pay much less. Where the rents are moderate, amounting say to one - third of the annual produce of the holding, the tenant who pays £6, or thirty dollars a year rent, has sixty dollars a year left to pay his expenses of farming and keep his family, often consisting of from six to twelve persons. In many cases he would not have anything like so much as this amount of produce left. In fact, in some of the worst parts of Ireland one occasionally finds tenants who would have nothing whatever left of the produce of their holdings after paying their rents. In other instances where they pay very low rents they still have very slender means of subsistence.

One often finds these small tenants deeply in debt. In 1880 it was estimated that 140,000 of them were bankrupt. It was asserted in the discussions on the Arrears of Rent Bill last summer that from 150,000 to 200,000 were unable to pay their rents, and in need of relief. The causes of this indebtedness I shall speak of more at length in another chapter. Among them are the smallness and sterility. of many of the holdings, the size of the tenants' families, the failure of crops, high rents, bad farming, lack of industry and thrift on the part of the tenants, and the general evils of the old system of tenure.

In some parts of Ireland, the land is fairly well farmed, the stables, fences, roads and drains are kept in repair, the tenants live in neat cottages tidily kept; there are evidences of taste and culture among the people, the cattle and horses seem well fed and the improved farm implements show a progressive spirit in the farmers. In the North and East one sees many signs of prosperity. Some of the farms in the neighborhood of Limerick and others in Tipperary county are as fine as can be found anywhere. The crops of hay, oats and potatoes that one often sees in some of these more fertile districts are simply marvellous. An American friend who looked into a hay field where the grass had just been cut found it almost impossible to believe that all the hay lying on the ground had grown on the field, there was so much of it. Even in some of the more mountainous districts there are very fertile spots, and the crops often look well. Dairy farms are found in some of the rich level plains as well as in more mountainous places.

While there are evidences of thrift and prosperity in some places, in other parts of the country the majority of the farms have a most forlorn and neglected appearance. Even in the better portions of the country the houses and stables are often out of repair, the fences have fallen down, the hedges have spread out, the drains have filled up, weeds and bushes flourish where, with proper farming, good crops could be raised. Sometimes one sees tracts of land that appear to have been farmed out or reclamations made at considerable expense that have been allowed to run to waste again and present a most desolate appearance. The houses in many of these districts are often small and badly constructed. For example, on the grass farms of Roscommon, which vary in extent from fifty to five hundred acres, and several of which are frequently held by the same tenant, often a wealthy man, there are no buildings to be seen except the miserable huts of the herds and of occasional squatters; there are no trees for shade or shelter, and no hedges, clay banks and stone walls separating the fields. In some parts of the South and West one often finds the people living in small mud huts one story high, often with no floor, window or chimney, and the poorest conceivable sort of furniture. In these wretched huts the man and his wife and children live with the pigs and chickens, and the cow and donkey, if the family are rich enough to own these animals. The manure heap and green pool are sometimes so near the door that one has difficulty in entering. The inside is often much more like a very poor stable than a human habitation, Respectable farmers in this country would not keep their cattle and horses in such dwellings. One often sees these little huts on the edges of bogs or along the mountain side where the tenant has reclaimed a little waste land from which he manages to eke out an exceedingly scanty livelihood. The scenery around these houses is often exceedingly beautiful; but there is no trace of appreciation of the beautiful on the part of the people. In the summer of 1881. I traveled by jaunting car from Macroom to Glengarriff, and thence by coach to Kenmare and Killarney. The houses along the road were nearly all of the poorer sort. The contrast between them and the palaces of the rich was very great. Groups of cottages are often seen together. In these regions and in parts of Galway and Mayo through which I traveled in a jaunting car in 1882 one often sees these little clusters of cabins by the road or on the hillsides, adding variety to a scene made up of stretches of wild bog or mountain, sometimes beautiful and varied with clear bright streams and lakes, sometimes black, treeless, barren and forbidding.

It is pleasantly surprising that the people, men, women and children, who come out of these wretched abodes, generally have much cleaner hands, faces and clothes than one would imagine. The children that one meets on the road or streets of the little villages, have usually clean, bright faces, and clean though often ragged clothes. The beggars are not always dirty or desperately poor either, if the stories told of some of, their bank accounts are true. One sees a great many people, however, in the poorer parts of Ireland, who look pinched and shrivelled up with poverty and want. The traditional Irishman, jolly and careless, is not often found in these parts.

The great number of beggars that one meets in some parts of the country, cast a shade of sadness and melancholy over the impressions produced by the most beautiful scenery. The priests in some instances have forbidden the people to beg. It is not an uncommon thing for a traveler in some parts of the country to have several children following his car, sometimes at a breakneck speed, asking for pennies. Even the newsboys beg much more persistently in Ireland than elsewhere, to buy their papers. Among these begging classes, politeness and suavity of manner are generally found. "They blarney a fellow out of his last shilling," a friend of mine said after exhausting his patience and small coin. In July, 1881, I passed through the gap of Dunloe in company with three other Americans. We were attended by a troop of thirty or forty female beggars, some of whom wanted to sell us "mountain dew" or "potheen" whiskey and goat's milk or mementos of the place. After enduring their importunities for a long time, one of our party tried to persuade them to stop and wait for a large party of Americans who were only a mile behind us, and who, he said, had plenty of money, while we were impecunious. "O but we'll not see as handsome a gentleman as yourself in many a long day," was the reply that greeted him before his speech was ended. How many shillings it cost him he never would tell.

Politeness and hospitality are to be found everywhere in Ireland, in the landlord's castle and in the peasant's hut, in the closely crowded streets and in the wildest parts of the country. One never has reason to fear pickpockets or robbers. The way in which some of the people of the rougher sort speak of the hospitality that is due to strangers is interesting. One of them who was talking about the outrages, and looked as if he were always ready for a riot against the landlord, said, “Sir, you can travel anywhere in Ireland, from one end of it to the other, without ever being molested. If a man would dare to attack you, a hundred men would rise up in your defense." When we read of all the outrages, the murders and woundings, the violent agitation that has been going on in Ireland, we are naturally surprised to find politeness everywhere, a wonderful sense of security, and a great deal of intelligence.

The mode of life and general condition of the people have improved considerably of late, and there is frequently found a desire among the poorer classes to live more decently. Hopelessness and utter lack of ambition are however too often characteristic of the Irish farmer and laborer. There is great need of improvement in methods of farming, and in agricultural implements. On some of the land machinery could not be used, but on much of it reaping machines and plows would be found much better than sickles and spades.

One of the most marked improvements is that which has taken place in the dwellings of the people. "The census commissioners of 1841 divided the dwellings of the people into four classes. The fourth class comprised all mud cabins having but one room; the third class consisted of a better description, built of mud, but varying from two to four rooms, with windows; the second were good farmhouses, or in town houses, having from five to nine rooms, and windows; the first class included all houses of a better description. The following table shows the house accommodation in 1841, 1851, 1861, and 1871":

It will be seen from this table that the per cent. of fourth and third class houses has decreased greatly, while that of first and second class houses has considerably increased.

CHAPTER III.

IN the recent agitation the cry, "the land of Ireland for the Irish people," has often been raised, and a strong feeling among the people of a right to the soil in some shape has been evident. There have been frequent allusions to the time when the land belonged to the people. Communistic theories and notions of property have been received with a good deal of favor by many of the people. French and American influences are sometimes set down as the cause. I think enough stress has not been laid on the traditions of the old communal system of the Celtic tribes. The Irish are an imaginative race, fond of dwelling on the past, on the former freedom and glory of their race, and idealizing the heroic deeds of their ancestors. The Celtic or Brehon laws have been much praised by some Irish writers, and greatly abused by the English. The Statute of Kilkenny denounced the code as "wicked and damnable." Spenser, Sir John Davies, and other writers view it in pretty much the same light. Some of these writers do not seem to have understood it clearly. The publication of translations of the Senchus Mor and of the Irish Law Tracts by the Royal Commission appointed for that purpose, investigations by Celtic scholars, and a comparison of early customs and systems of jurisprudence, have thrown much light on the origin and character of the Brehon laws, and shown that their basis was the same primitive customs out of which the early Roman, German, and Hindoo laws sprung. The system in vogue in Ireland was by no means simple and uniform. On the other hand it was complicated, and differed in different parts of the country, and at different periods. Sir Henry Maine has given a good picture of his view of the Irish tribe in its relation to the land.

The theory in general was that the land of the tribe was the property of the tribe, whether it consisted of a joint family of kinsmen, or a larger and more artificial group. Allotments and re - allotments were made from time to time to individuals. The waste land was common. The chief who was elected during the lifetime of his predecessor, out of the same family within the fifth degree of relationship, had a general administrative authority over the common tribal land, and over the unappropriated waste. He had also an estate in severalty, as was likely the case too with other prominent men. He was a military leader, and often rich in cattle, which he portioned out among the tribesmen on terms somewhat similar to those on which the feudal lords let their lands, the tribesmen by taking cattle becoming the vassals of the chief. Besides these tribesmen who were in a certain sense tenants of the chief, there was a class who were much more entirely dependent, the outlaws or exiles from other tribes, of whom there are supposed to have been many, and who became the vassals of the chief, receiving his protection and cultivating his land. They were the first tenants at will known to Ireland." Even in the remote past we find accounts of rack rent, which one of the glosses compares "to the milk of a cow which is compelled to give milk every month to the end of the year." "It is," says Sir Henry Maine, "certainly a striking circumstance, that in the far distance of Irish tradition we come upon conflicts between rent - paying and rent - receiving tribes— that at the first moment when our information respecting Ireland becomes full and trustworthy, our informants dwell with indignant emphasis on the rack renting of tenants by the Irish chiefs."

The exactions of the chiefs, "the cuttings and cosherings" and "spendings" were sometimes very severe. Still the right of every tribesman to an allotment of the tribal land, and to the use of the common was undisputed. The traditions of this communal ownership are still kept alive. The incidents and drawbacks to it, the heavy exactions of the chiefs, the servile condition of many of the people are forgotten, and the system is invested by the imagination with a wonderful amount of freedom and independence.

I shall not undertake to trace the history of the introduction of English tenures, as that would involve a review of too much early Irish history. Henry the Second introduced English laws for his English subjects. English tenures prevailed only in a small part of the island. Side by side with them for centuries, the old communal system with its elective chiefs and its descent by gavel - kind by which the property was distributed to all the sons in equal portions, was maintained. Henry III induced some of the chiefs to become converted into landlords, giving them titles to the lands of the tribesmen, over which they had before exercised only an official control. The confiscations of Elizabeth and James I," the plantings" of Munster and Ulster extended the domain of English law, and a judicial decision in 1603 declared the Brehon customs illegal. After this the English system prevailed, although traces of the Celtic existed until a recent period. The Irish in many places clung to their old customs and refused to yield their rights to occupy a portion of the land. Perhaps there has never been a time when the theory that the people owned the land, although the landlord might be allowed the rent, did not have numerous supporters. The Irish “land hunger" and indignation at being turned out are centuries old.

The English system of tenures has been somewhat modified in its application to Irish lands. Of some of these modifications the Irish tenants complain greatly, and I think with justice. Judge Longfield thus sums up the most important changes:

"The feudal law of distress was increased in force, to make it a more powerful instrument for extracting rent from a reluctant or impoverished tenantry. The old laws, which were unduly favorable to the landlord, were generally retained, as if they had been unalterable laws of nature; but they were at once altered when they appeared to afford a temporary protection to the tenant."

Take the case of a disputed account between the landlord and tenant. The former maintains that a year's rent is due to him; the latter insists that he owes nothing. Do they come before a court of justice on equal terms, to have this question tried? On the contrary, the landlord, as the feudal superior, takes the law into his own. hands, and without making any proof of his demand, he sends his bailiff to seize the goods of the tenant. The landlord was not obliged to apply to any officer of the law, or to give any security to pay damages if his demand should prove to be unfounded. But it was otherwise with the tenant; if he saw his goods distrained by this summary process, he could not get them back without a troublesome replevin, which he could only get by giving security to pay the sum demanded. To discourage him from contesting the landlord's rights, he was compelled by an Act of Parliament to pay double the costs if he failed. Still, at common law, the distress, or goods distrained, could not be sold, and a tenant ruined and driven to despair, might submit to the loss, and still refuse to pay; but an Act of Parliament was passed to enable the landlord to sell the goods and pay himself.

Still he could not seize the tenant's crops while they were growing, as by the common law crops while they were growing were considered as a part of the soil and freehold, and could not be distrained. But here Parliament again intervened, and passed a law to enable the landlord to distrain the crops while they were still growing, so that as soon as the corn appeared above the ground, he might send his keepers to take possession, and cut and carry it away when it was ripe.

If the tenant removed his goods to avoid distress, an Act of Parliament intervened to visit him and the friends who assisted him with a penalty, although the landlord himself may have been at the same moment hiding his own goods to evade an execution.

In the same manner Acts of Parliament were passed to give the landlord the power of evicting his tenant for non - payment of rent, and of recovering possession of the land in cases in which he was not entitled to this remedy either by the terms of his contract, or by the rules of the common law. Those laws were injurious by leading the landlord to rely more on the extraordinary powers given to him by law, than on the character of the tenant, or the liberal terms on which he set his land; but I refer to them now as co - operating with other circumstances to lead the poor Irish farmer to the opinion that the laws were framed entirely in the interests of the landlord class."

The fact that the tenant has usually made and maintained all the improvements and has had no security in law against being forced to leave them without being paid for them, or against having their value practically confiscated by an unlimited increase of rent, has placed him entirely at the mercy of the landlord. Where the latter was a man of integrity, and honor, and strong enough to resist the temptation to profit by insisting upon his full legal rights, the tenant may have fared well enough. This was certainly the case in many instances. It was a grievous fault, however, in the system, and one unknown to the system in vogue in England, that the tenant of necessity made and kept up the improvements and had no legal right to them.

One often meets Irishmen who seem to thoroughly distrust the law and courts. Sometimes indeed they fear that justice may be done. More often they look upon the law as the instrument of injustice. Or they are slow to put faith in any measures of relief, and therefore often hinder rather than help in the execution of the laws. When one reads the history of Ireland, he is not surprised that the Irish people should have this distrust of English legislation. The law formerly gave the landlord almost despotic power. Sometimes he was honorable and forbearing; sometimes harsh and cruel. The feudal law in England was, long ago, modified in the interests of the people. In England, however, the landlord was of the same race, and had many interests and much history in common with the tenant. In Ireland the tenant looked upon the landlord as an alien, an invader, a conqueror, who had by confiscation forced a foreign system of laws upon the people, wholly disregarding their rights of property. The landlord too often returned the feeling of the tenant, if not with hatred, at least with contempt.

There has been in Ireland for nearly a century a determined war against the landlord's power, and the tenant has got many new rights secured to him by law, and a far better social standing than he had a hundred years ago.

CHAPTER IV.

TENANCIES in Ireland have been either "at will," "from year to year," or leases for years, lives, or in perpetuity. The tenancies at will, where "the land was let for such period as both landlord and tenant chose that the relation between them should continue - practically, so long as the landlord chose," have always been regarded with disfavor by the tenants. Until the time of Lord Mansfield, however, the law presumed, when a tenant was found in possession paying a rent without having the length of his term specified, that the tenancy was one at will. Such tenancies were by no means uncommon in England a few centuries ago. Out of some of those most dependent upon the will of the lord, copyhold estates sprang. At a very early period the law gave the tenant at will a right to the yearly crops which he had sown but not yet reaped when he was turned out. In the course of time his right was still further extended, and it was decided that where a tenant at will had entered and paid rent he was to be regarded as in effect a tenant from year to year and could not be turned out without six months notice.

From Lord Mansfield's time the law assumed a tenancy, where no term was specified, to be from year to year. Such a tenancy was defined to be a lease for the term of a year, to commence at a certain time and continue until the end of the said year and so on to the next year, de anno in annum, as long as the parties pleased. This lease could be determined by the action of either party on six months' notice. A law enacted in 1877 made twelve months' notice necessary in Ireland, such notice to be given on any gale day on which the rent becomes due.

Tenancies from year to year, although liable to be ended at any time on proper notice by the landlord, might be, and as a matter of fact, were often allowed to run on for generations. Their long existence sometimes led the tenants to regard them as amounting to an almost perpetual interest in the land. The tenant could sell or assign his interest, although, of course, his successor was liable to an immediate notice to quit, and the value of his estate was therefore uncertain. Leases for long terms or in perpetuity have at some periods found favor with both landlords and tenants. The great absentee landlords at some periods preferred to grant long leases. They found it more to their tastes in the disordered state of the country to let their land to a few persons for long periods at low rents than to collect rents from a large number of small tenants, many of whom were often poor and hostile. The land was in these cases generally sublet, sometimes two, three, and even four or five times over, and the occupying tenant often paid a very high rent. Such leases were by no means beneficial to the country. It has, however, been a frequent cause of complaint that the landlords would not grant leases. Want of security or fixity of tenure has been regarded as a great grievance. Sometimes the tenants were themselves unwilling to be bound by a longer lease than from year to year.

Spenser, writing on this subject, in 1596, speaks of the aversion of the landlords to granting and of the tenants to accepting leases, and of the general prevalence of tenancies at will, or from year to year. He saw the evils arising from such a system in a country where the tenants made the improvements, and urges that leases for long periods would be much better for both landlords and tenants. Other subsequent writers also grow eloquent over the evils of tenancies at will. In the eighteenth century leases became more numerous, particularly when by the gradual modifications of the penal laws, the Catholics were allowed first to hold reclamation leases for 61 years, (in 1771), leases for any term under 1000 years, (in 1777), and finally, (in 1782), to acquire freehold property. The greatest impulse given to the granting of leases was the extension of the 40s. franchise to the Catholics in 1793. This entitled any freeholder in the ordinary sense, or any holder of a lease for one or more lives at 40s. rent, to a county vote. The tenants usually voted with their landlords, and to get the largest possible political influence the landlords granted leases of small holdings most willingly. The greater the number of these freehold leases the larger the number of votes that the landlord had at his command. In the agitation that preceded the Catholic emancipation, (1828), the tenants in many cases asserted their independence of their landlords, and after this the granting of freehold leases of very small farms became less common. The abolition of the 40s. leasehold franchise in 1829, took away whatever motive there may have been left for granting these leases. The effect of the rage for leasing for long periods is seen in the fact that in 1845 it was estimated that one seventh of the land of Ireland was held under leases for lives renewable forever. A few years ago one - thirteenth of the land was said to be leased in perpetuity. The Act of 1870 encouraged the landlords to grant leases for more than thirty years, and there has been a slight increase in the number of leaseholders since its passage.

While much of the poverty and wretchedness of the Irish tenants has been attributed to their not having leases, there is reason, I think, for doubting whether long leases are, on the whole, most beneficial for the country or the tenant, especially where the land is. sub - let. One sometimes sees lease - holders for long periods living side by side with tenants from year to year, without any perceptible difference, in thrift and prosperity. Some of the most neglected looking holdings in Ireland are leases in perpetuity. Lord Dufferin asserts that "if you see a very ill - cultivated tract of land in Ireland, and ask a passer - by how it comes to be in that condition, a common answer is, ‘Oh, sir, it's a lase.' "

The advantage of leases is that they give the tenant security of possession for a long period, and that he can then undertake and carry out improvements, and be certain to have the enjoyment of them for many years. This would seem to be a most decided advantage in a country where the tenant makes all the improvements. However, the tenancies from year to year often lasted from generation to generation, and the tenants usually preferred to run the risk of notices to quit rather than bind themselves to pay a fixed high rent for a long term of years, knowing that at the end of that time their rents would pretty certainly be raised, and perhaps a fine exacted for the renewal of the lease, or that he might be compelled to give up all his improvements without getting any compensation for them. The fixity of tenure provided by the new law has most of the advantages of long leases, and none of the drawbacks.

CHAPTER V.

THE value of land in Ireland may be said to consist of three elements. The first of these, the ownership of the soil, is the property of the landlord. The more violent of the agitators are in the habit of going back over the history of the conquest and confiscations, and asserting, that most of the landlords' titles are ultimately based on force or fraud and ought not to be respected. The landlord class represents to them the foreign invader, and his right rests on plunder and injustice. Similarly harsh conquests and confiscations took place in other countries but were followed by a blending together of the conquerors and conquered, of the new landlords and the old occupiers into one people, or the entire removal of the weaker party.

The second element in the value of land in Ireland is the improvements. In this country they are usually made by the landlord or by the tenant under an improvement lease and are regarded as the property of the landlord. In England the same state of things prevails. The maxim of the English law was, “whatever is built upon the soil goes with the soil." Whatever, therefore, is affixed by the tenant to the soil, becomes the property of the landlord. There have been some important modifications of this law in England and in this country, but in general it is still in force. The law in Ireland was the same until recently. The Roman law, while its general maxim was the one from which the English law was derived, had an important exception, giving the tenant a right to remove such of his improvements as were capable of being removed. In this way he usually secured compensation for such as were of practical value. The French law is based on the Roman, and the tenant is able to get compensation for at least a part of his improvements.

In Ireland the improvements have as a rule been made by the tenant. They are the result of his labor and money. There are "English managed" estates it is true where the improvements have been made, and to a great degree kept up by the landlord. These however are not very numerous. Usually, the tenant or some one of his ancestors or predecessors has built the house and stable and fences and roads, made the drains, cleared away the stones from the land, and in general done whatever was done to bring the land into its present state of cultivation. If he did not make the improvements himself, he inherited them or paid his predecessor for them. He claims a right to use and enjoy and dispose of them by sale or will. In some cases, the landlord has paid him for them either wholly or in part. In others the landlord claims that the tenant, by reason of his having had the land at a very low rent for many years, has been able to recompense himself for the labor and money expended in the improvements, and that therefore they belong, in equity as well as in law, to the landlord who has virtually paid the tenant for them by letting him have the land at this low rent. Again, there are cases where certain of the improvements on which the tenants lay great stress, are really not of value to the landlord. This is especially true in some of the poorer and more crowded districts, where the landlords would find it more profitable to let the land in holdings of considerable size for grazing purposes, than in small holdings as at present. The numerous small houses would be of no value were this change to be made. On the contrary, clearing them away would be a trouble and expense. In general, however, it may be said, that the tenant has made and maintained the improvements, or inherited or purchased them, and has at least an equitable right to them, and that they have added considerably to the letting value of the farm.

In some cases, these improvements are of more value than the farm. An acre of bog land may not be worth more than two or three pounds. It often costs twelve or fifteen pounds to drain it. It is in cases of this kind that great hardships sometimes occur. The landlord or his agent, who is perhaps not very familiar with the history of all the little holdings on the estate, comes along and finds a tenant with a few acres of fertile land, which he reclaimed a few years ago, and for which he pays what is now a very low rent. The rent is evidently far below the market value and is accordingly raised - not enough very likely to eat up the entire value of the improvements - but enough to create alarm and bitterness. The more extreme of the Land League party have claimed that under the term improvements, ought to be included all the difference there is between entirely uncultivated land and the land in its present condition.

Besides this right to the improvements which he or his predecessor has made, the tenant claims a right to occupy the land indefinitely on the payment of a certain rent. In this country a man rents a farm for a year for so much and has no thought of acquiring any further right to the property than for the one year. But in Ireland the case is quite different. There are traditions of the old tribal communal state of things, when every tribesman had a share in the land. One often hears the maxim, "The land of Ireland for the Irish people." The Land League utterances are full of the doctrine that "the Lord intended the land of Ireland for the people who till it." The stories of the cruel confiscations are told over. and over again and again, their injustice is loudly asserted, and the feelings of the people aroused in this way. In many cases too the same families have lived on the same estates for many generations. Everything in the shape of a house or stable, or fence or drain, has been made by them. Long use and the application of their labor to the improvements has given them a feeling of ownership. It is their home. The family traditions cluster around it. They have paid rent to a foreigner in race and religion, often a man whom they rarely saw. The landlord or agent appeared at rare intervals, but took no interest in the place beyond getting the rent. They managed the place as they chose. The landlord and agent in many cases would prefer the old tenants to new ones, and so long as they secured the rent, naturally did not care to turn out their tenants. In this way long tenancies were encouraged. The great number of leases granted to small holders for long periods, towards the close of the last century, giving the same families interests in the same holdings for several generations, served to strengthen the feeling of ownership. When the leases expired the same tenants very often continued to hold the land from year to year. From whatever causes the feeling springs, it is a fact that in many parts of Ireland, the tenant has all along regarded himself as entitled to live on the land from year to year indefinitely, on the payment of the rent. He thought that he and the landlord were joint owners of the property - the landlord owning the rent, the tenant the land.

These two elements - the improvements and the right of indefinite occupancy - have long been regarded by the tenant as his interests. Until recently he has had no legal guarantee for them, although the courts of equity sometimes acknowledged them. It is the claim to these interests that has made the tenant resist so strongly any attempt to turn him out of his holding. I shall in subsequent chapters explain the provisions of the new legislation, which give him a legal right to these interests, and enable him to enforce that right.