No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 July 2016
Under the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, there were two ways by which a judicial rent might be fixed for an agricultural holding in Ireland to which the act applied. One way was by the landlord, or tenant, or both jointly, applying to the land commission court or to the civil bills court of the county; the court then, after considering all the circumstances of the case, fixed a ‘fair’ rent. The other way was by landlord and tenant making a written agreement out of court as to what was the ‘fair’ rent of the holding, and lodging the agreement in court; the agreement, after three months, was filed by the court as the judicial rent of the holding, without any enquiry being made by the court. In both cases the rent was fixed for a period of fifteen years, at the end of which period the landlord or tenant was at liberty to apply to the court to have the rent fixed for a second term of fifteen years or to lodge a fresh agreement in court for such purpose; a tenant whose rent had been fixed in court for the first term might, if he wished, lodge an agreement for the second term, and conversely a tenant whose rent had been fixed by agreement for the first term might have it fixed in court for the second term. Much has been written about the fixing of judicial rents in court; little comment has been made on the fixing of rents by agreement out of court, and this is not surprising, since it was essentially a silent process, involving no public proceedings. Yet this latter process was a very important part of the whole operation of the rent-fixing acts in Ireland.
It is not practicable to give detailed references for many of the figures and tables given in this article since they have been computed from figures scattered all over the series of registers in the Irish Land Commission, Records Branch, Dublin.
These sets of registers include (1) registers of fair rents fixed by the land commission for a first term; (2) land commission registers of agreements fixing fair rents for a first term; (3) registers of fair rents fixed by the land commission for a first term for leaseholds; (4) land commission registers of applications to fix fair rents withdrawn; (5) land commission registers of applications to fix fair rents dismissed. For (1) and (2) above, there is a parallel series of registers of civil bills courts, which include leasehold and dismissed cases, but these registers are not so detailed. There is a further set of registers of (a) fair rents fixed by the land commission for a second term; (b) agreements lodged with the land commission fixing fair rents for a second term; (c) fair rents fixed by the land commission for a second term for leaseholds. There is a corresponding register of fair rents fixed by the civil bills courts for a second term but no registers of civil bills courts' second-term agreements.
All these registers are arranged county by county and chronologically, according to the date of the judicial order or of the lodgment of an agreement. Thus, to trace rent-fixing operations on the estate of any one big landlord might involve reference to literally hundreds of separate pages of these various registers. The above description of the registers will indicate the general source of information, where no footnote ? reference is given in this article.
2 44 and 45 Vic., cap. 49.
3 Ibid., sec. 8 (1).
4 Ibid., sec. 8 (6).
5 Tables in appendix to report of Irish land commissioners for the year 1884–5, pp. 10, 16 (c. 4625), H.C. 1886, xix.
6 Ibid. pp. 18, 20.
7 This phenomenon is true of the whole period of rent-fixing in Ireland, both for first and second term, as well as of the limited period surveyed in this article.
8 Freeman's Journal, 7 Nov. 1896.
9 A Land Valuer, Report on the present state of the Irish land question (London, 1886), p. 14.Google Scholar The author of this pamphlet was Murrough O'Brien, according to N.L.I. Catalogue.
11 Op. cit., p. 8, footnote.
12 I have not ascertained whether Clanricarde lodged any agreements after July 1903.
13 44 and 45 Vic, cap. 49, sec. 5 (1).
14 A Land Valuer, Report on the present state of the Irish land question, pp. 13—14 Google Scholar.
15 The Irish landlords themselves complained about the legal expenses involved in the fixing of rents, though this complaint probably relates more tc the higher costs of appeals and rehearings (Irish landowners' convention, 1st report, Nov. 1887).
16 Land Commission, fair rent files, co. Galway, first-term agreement no. 1749, 18 June 1883.
17 The letter is signed in the tenant's name, but was presumably written for him, since he was illiterate.
18 Letter to land commission, 15 Aug. 1883 (attached to co. Galway first-term agreement no. 1749).
19 Land Commission, co. Galway, first-term agreement, no. 4094. 2 Jan. 1888.
20 Land Commission, co. Galway, first-term order no. 14096, 21 Aug. 1891 The amount fixed was £9 15s. 0d.
21 Cf.Cherry, R. R.. The Irish land law and land purchase acts, 1860 to 1901 (3rd ed., Dublin, 1903), pp. 268, 293.Google Scholar
22 Report of inspector 7 May 1898 (Land Commission, records branch, A 348, box 1409).
23 59 and 60 Vic, cp. 47, sec. 9 (1).
24 Murrough O'Brien, referring to this provision, suggests that it was rendered virtually inoperative by judicial action : ‘ Meredith said he didn't know what was meant by the section; it didn't say how regard was to be had to the landlord's refusal, and so took no notice of it— delivered judgment “ in silence ” ’—MS note, vol. of newspaper cuttings relating to Griffith's Instructions and Sundry Valuation Memos, p. 85 (one of 8 unnumbered vols of Murrough O'Brien's newspaper cuttings in N.L.I.). Meredith was one of the land commissioners.
25 44 and 45 Vic, cap. 49, sec 1.
26 The landlord had no right of preemption in the case of holdings subject to the Ulster tenant-right custom.
27 Cf.Cherry, , op. cit., pp. 234–5.Google Scholar
28 44 and 45 Vic, cap. 49, sec. 8 (5).
29 Subject to adjustment for any improvements made by the tenant, or damage or deterioration caused by him, since the time at which the ‘ true value ’ was so fixed.
30 There were no cases of judicial rents being fixed by the courts in Galway in 1881.
31 Land Commission, co. Galway, first-term order no. 5265, 30 Jan. 1884.
32 E.g. Land Commission, co. Galway, first-term agreements no. 2456, of 21 Dec. 1883, no. 2487, of 31 Dec. 1883, and no. 2583, of 17 Jan. 1884. In all three cases, the rent was fixed at the same amount as formerly.
33 Minute of letter from land commission, 8 Jan. 1885 (attached, with other relevant correspondence, to Land Commission, co. Galway, first-term agreement no. 3490, 15 Jan. 1885). For another Galway landlord who was acting, or attempting to act, in a similar way, see Land Commission, co. Galway, first-term agreement no. 3426, 27 Nov. 1884.
34 59 and 60 Vic, cap. 47, sec. 20.
35 E.g. Land Commission, co. Galway, first-term agreement no. 199, 3 March 1882. The rent in this case was increased by agreement from £6 18s. 5d. to £7 6S. 6d.
36 One landlord drew up an originating agreement, dated 17 Nov. 1884, fixing the rent of a tenant at the same amount as formerly. The agreement was not lodged in court till 18 Dec. 1884, and the landlord, in a letter to the land commission, explained the delay as being due to his tenant's slowness in having his signature witnessed (he was illiterate). It is not difficult to see why he was in no hurry to sign such a document (letter attached to Land Commission, co. Galway, first-term agreement no. 3449, 18 Dec. 1884).
37 E.g. Land Commission, co. Galway, first-term order no. 5524, June 1884. The rent in this case was increased by court order from £7 5s. to £8.
38 This was a period of relative agricultural stability, during which agricultural prices did not vary greatly from year to year, and neither did the average rent-reductions effected by the fixing of judicial rents. The period taken does not coincide exactly with the annual reports of the land commission.
39 It is possible that, owing to the complexity and occasional inaccuracies of the land commission registers, the author may not have noticed a few landlords, other than those given in the tables, who should have been included.
40 To have taken a basis of thirty or more rents, as in Table 1, would have made Table 2 very much longer, without any material difference in character being apparent.
41 Generally speaking, the initiative in concluding agreements lay with the landlord : in having judicial rents fixed in court, with the tenant.
42 A few of these 32 landlords showed signs, in later years, of realising that the conclusion of agreements had advantages; e.g. Richard Berridge lodged 35 agreements in court in March 1886. But these signs are slight until the time came for second-term fixing of judicial rents, in the years after 1896.
43 See U. H. Hussey De Burgh, The landowners of Ireland.
44 Bagot, Butler, Cannon, Campbell, Clements, Ffrench, Gore, Hodgson, Lambert, J W Lynch, Marcus Lynch, R. C. Lynch, MacDermott, Nolan, Vesey.
45 Theobald Blake, Burke, Chevers, Clanmorris, De Clifford, Gough, Henry. Kendall. Lewin, McCulla, Kirwan, Richardson, Waithman.
46 It is not always possible to be certain, as many court cases were doubtless formally withdrawn or dismissed months after they had been really settled by the landlord concluding an agreement with the tenant out of court.
47 E.g. Marcus Lynch, Bagot, Cannon, and MacDermott were among those landlords who had a large number of rent-fixing castes against them dismissed.
48 Exact to the nearest penny in most cases.
49 The number lodged was actually 57, but five of these were cancelled, since the tenants concerned were leaseholders, and were there fore excepted from the act of 1881.
50 W R. Gregory
51 Most of them in June 1908.
52 Between the dates of the fixing of first-term and second-term judicial rents, some of the rents had been reduced unofficially by small amounts of 6d., 1s., or 2s.
53 Two holdings had been subdivided after 1885.
54 Gregory, Lady (ed.), Sir William Gregory, an autobiography (2nd ed., London, 1894), p. 158.Google Scholar
55 Ibid., p. 259.
56 In the period 1886–1903, one tenant on Gregory's estate, and eleven tenants on Kelly's, had rents fixed in court for a first-term. How ever, the total reduction in rent rolls on both estates from 1881 onwards was very slight compared to the losses sustained by most landlords.
57 On the other hand, some newcomers joined the ranks of the agreement-inclined landlords after 1885. E.g. Sir W R. Mahon lodged 127 agreements in court in 1889, and John Pollok lodged 184 in 1890.
58 It is often extremely difficult if not impossible to trace in the land commission registers the fixing of first-term and second-term judicial rents on the same holding : the arrangement of the registers is not very helpful in this respect, and the names of landlord or tenant, or both, may have changed in the interval of fifteen years or more.
59 At least two landlords, C. T Redington and Count De Basterot, had probably sold to the tenants most of the holdings on which first-term judicial rents had been fixed 1881–5, before the time came for second- term fixing.
60 All figures of judical rents in the following tables take no account of possible appeals, as these are not noted in the land commission registers. Up to 1894, Irish landlords by appeals had secured in all an average rise of only 0.02%
61 The number of rents fixed ‘ by consent ’ was 22 on Butler's estate, 29 on Churcher's, and 20 on R. C. Lynch's. The point does not apply to any appreciable extent to any of the other 9 landlords.
62 The Poor Law valuation (made in 1852 for the province of Connaught) is a very unreliable guide to the value of any holding; however, the assertion made concerning Butler and Clements would appear to be valid whether the Poor Law valuation be considered as a standard of value of about 25% below the full or rackrent value in 1852—as Griffiths, who was responsible for it, stated—or whether, as Murrough O'Brien considered, it was really ‘a record of the average rents then paid ‘ (Murrough O'Brien, Sliding scales for rent; value and fair rents; annual and capital value, p. 8).
63 In totalling the acreage, each holding has been taken to the nearest acre. The size, and the Poor Law valuation, of some holdings is not known.
64 Butler's former rents exceeded the Poor Law valuation by 116.37% in the case of the tenants with whom agreements were sign,ed, and by 111 19% in the case of the tenants who went to court. The corresponding figures for Clements are 224 43% and 133 58%
65 Register of fair rents fixed by Land Commission, co. Galway, first- term. Information as to previous increases of rent was never given in the case of rents fixed judicially by agreement.
66 Blake, Butler, Cannon, Churcher, Clements, Lewin, Marcus Lynch, R. C. Lynch and Vesey.
67 It is just possible that some of the rents fixed by agreement in the four years under survey had already, within the same period, been reduced from their pre–1881 level without such reduced rents being registered by agreement as judicial rents; but this is considered not at all likely.
68 The courts did likewise with four out of the twenty-two holdings- on Blake's estate, the rents of which were fixed in court.
69 E.g. Land Commission, co. Galway, first-term order no. 5529, June 1884.
70 Forty applications to have fair rents fixed on holdings on Campbell's Galway estate were dismissed by the land commission court in January 1884, due to the non-appearance of the tenants concerned; no doubt many, if not all, of these tenants figure among the ninety-three tenants with whom Campbell concluded agreements in the ensuing year.
71 Blake, Butler, Campbell, Cannon, Churcher, Clements, Lewin, MacDermott and Vesey.
72 For the two landlords who were exceptions to this rule—Bagot and Marcus Lynch—the difference was relatively slight.
73 These are averages for each estate. There were, of course, a number of fairly big tenants who signed agreements with their landlords and, conversely, a number of small tenants who took action against their landlords in court.
74 E.g. Palmer, N. D., The Irish Land League crisis, pp. 21–2.Google Scholar
75 This table may not be complete. See footnote 58. Furthermore, it sometimes happens that the size of a holding has changed between the dates of first-term and second-term fixing—a few acres have been added or lost, indicating stratification of the tenantry. Where this happens to any considerable extent on an estate—as in the case of Marcus Lynch's property—a comparison between first-term and second-term judicial rents is virtually impossible. Where comparisons have been made in the following pages, it may be assumed that this problem does not arise to any noticeable extent.
76 At some date between 1886 and 1898, F. T Lewin seems to have acquired the property of J W Cannon, and the estates were therefore amalgamated.
77 See later references in this article to unofficial rent-reductions.
78 And that, of the tenants who signed first-term agreements, a higher proportion went to court for a second-term than signed second-term agreements; but this is probably not true for co. Galway or for Ireland as a whole.
79 Lewin, MacDermott and Vesey.
80 This represents twenty-five first-term holdings : two holdings were combined for second-term rent-fixing.
81 In the column for the first-term judicial rent, the first figure given represents the actual first-term rent fixed, while the second figure represents the actual rent prevailing at the date of second-term fixing : since the date of first-term rent-fixing some holdings had had a few acres added to them, and their rent had been increased, though without reference to the court.
82 Land Commission, co. Galway, first-term agreement no. 957, 18 Jan. 1883.
83 Land Commission, co. Galway, second-term order no. 2590, 13 June 1906.
84 It was, of course, dependent upon the landlord having available land in his own occupation.
85 E.g. in the case quoted, the originating agreement lodged 18 Jan. 1883 gives the size of the holding as being 24 acres. By 13 June 1906, the holding had been enlarged, but the court order of that date gives the size of the holding as being 13 acres. Confusion is often made worse by lack of information in many cases as to whether the acreage figure given refers to Irish acres or to statute acres.
86 Bagot, Blake, Butler, Lewin, Marcus Lynch and Vesey.
87 This is throughout with reference only to the holdings the first-term rents of which were fixed in the period 22 Aug. 1881 to 31 Dec. 1885.
88 11 of the 12 rents were fixed first-term by agreement.
89 19 of the 27 rents were fixed first-term by agreement.