LANDLORDISM IN ULSTER.
(The Freeman's Journal on Thursday 9 June 1881 carried the following letter, written by Charles Quin, a priest who had grown up in the parish, but was then parish priest of the South Armagh parish of Killeavy. The letter gives details of the way rents were raised on any land that the farmers worked to improve. It mentions the hardships of the mountain farmers at the end of the 1870s, hardships which, locally, Quin says were worse than those of 1847. John J Monaghan, in his letter of 2 March 1880, writes of the danger of starvation in Kildress if funds were not forthcoming from charitable donations on a monthly basis [see elsewhere on this blog]. Fr Quin's letter give much interesting information on the Loughrans of Evishbrack - [written Evishbrook - a typesetting error], the Monaghans of Dunnamore and the Quins [of Dunnamore?]. Several of the familes referred to in the letter wrote letters to John Loughran in the USA, or are mentioned in the letters, see the blog, Lettters from kKildress. This period Ireland was known as, 'An Gorta Beag' - The Little Famine, many histories suggest this was confined to Connaght; this letter, and the letters from Kildress, make clear the Little Famine had a major effect on the upland farmers of Kildress )
TO THE EDITOR OF THE FREEMAN.
Sir – Facts are very stubborn things in their own way and it
is a fact that the years 1878, ’79 and ’80 were very trying on the tenants in
the mountain land, and Kildress being in the main a very mountainous parish,
suffered much. I know of no other parish
in Ulster that was so literally ruined by the continuous rains, the variations
in the price of stock and produce, the total failure of the potato crop, and
the partial loss of hay and oats that were not secured till Christmas day
during those memorable years. I remember
well ’47 and ’48 and I assert without fear of contradiction that the tenants in
Kildress suffered more acutely in the years 1879 and ’80 than they did in 1847
and ’48. Now, what would the world say
at the conduct of landlords, whether lords or earls, who would extract
increased rentals in 1847 when Ireland was like a huge sepulchre, strewn over
with the unburied corpses which lay with starvation’s gaze in the fever sheds
or on the roadsides and byways where there could be seen, if history tells us
right, mothers with their infant children clasped in cold embrace, while the
little ones were struggling against the mother’s fate by trying to extract
their natural aliment from sources now by death dried up! The conduct of such a lord would be declared
a legal and proprietary right, whilst the historian would describe it
differently – as that of a tyrant, of an oppressor, and, I might add, of a
monster. History tells us of many dark
deeds in this our island of sorrow, but, thank God, our history’s page of ’47
contains no such case of landlordism.
The history of landlordism in Ulster in 1879 and 1880 will yet be
written, and I will leave to the writer of those pages to describe the conduct
of the earl and his agents who extracted from their faithful tenants an
increased rental in years of dire distress.
In rare combination we find the charitable and humane, who, like good
Christians in these years of dire distress, seemed to forget their social,
political and religious differences and joined hands in the noble work of
feeding the poor, clothing the naked, and comforting the poor tenants in the
mountains of Kildress. In the pages of
the ‘Freeman’ appear the names of our beloved Primate and the good Duchess of
Marlborough, of our patriots Parnell and Dillon, of our doctors and priests,
all of whom in their own way were trying to assuage the sufferings of an
impoverished tenantry in the mountains.
But the names of the noble earl and his two agents (Tanner
and Burly Stuart) appear in the records of the county court over 80, as I am
informed, ejectment processes that were carried into effect in order to
frighten the tenants and coerce them into the payment of the increased rents in
these years of awful distress. If not 80
ejectments then I ask the noble earl and his two agents this simple question –
how many? In my evidence at the sitting
of the Bessborough Commission in Belfast I put the number at 86, but I am
informed since that this number is under the mark. In my examination before the commissioners I
treated the two estates as one and as such I treat them now, as they belong to
one noble earl. But say they be allowed
20 per cent of abatement for the last two years, and hence, our tenants have no
right to complain. They would have no
right to complain, nor would they complain I am sure, had the earl and his
agents paid the valuers Wilson and O’Neill to remain at home until the Land
Bill would pass and the famine pass away, but as the earth and its fulness by
divine right created for earls, their agents, their pleasures and sports, it
would be wicked, in their view of things, to allow the serfs and the slaves of
Kildress 20 per cent, on the rents of 1878.
I presume the earl and his agents reasoned thus – The times are very
hard now, and the landlords must do something in some way. Now let us put our heads together and see can
we devise some scheme whereby we may hoodwink the public by appearing to be
generous to our tenants, while at the same time we add 30 per cent to the
current rental. This reasoning became
too intricate for the mental capacity of the noble earl but not so for this
worthy agents. We will increase the rent
30 per cent, thus. We will reduce the rents of a few –
say that of the parish priest and a few others. We will make no changes in a few other
cases, then we will begin by increasing some 5 per cent, some 10 percent, some
20 per cent, some 40 per cent, some 80 per cent, some 100 per cent, some 500
per cent and the reclaimed land as a general rule 1,000 per cent. We will add this increment to the old rent
and embody it in the receipt of 1879. We
will then offer 20 per cent abatement to some and “the increases in rent under
the new valuation we will show as abatement to others for this year”. In the year 1880 we will extract the
increased rent and should the times continue bad we could allow 20 per cent for
that year on the increased rent, but without any loss to ourselves, and then
for the future a pure gain of 30 per cent on our large rental without expending
one sixpence towards its realisation.
The effects of this reasoning are clearly perceptible from the receipt
of Burly Stuart quoted in my last letter.
Michael Quin’s rent in 1878, £2 11s 8d, in 1879 increased to £6 13s 5d
which was embodied in the receipt but £4 2s 9d was refunded to him, being the
increase in the rent under the new valuation.
In 1880 Michael Quin paid the increased rent £6 13s 5d, receiving an
abatement of £1 12s 6d for the year, when deducted from £6 13s 5d leaves £5 0s
11d, which is an increase on his original rent of £2 9s 3d.
What was Quin’s abatement during these two years of dire
distress? Look at the figures which I
have given, and you will at once detect the principle on which the noble earl
and his worthy agents acted towards these reclaimers of mountain land in years
of famine. The public may ask why did
the tenants not resist such a claim at such a time and under such
circumstances? The answer is plain. The few who received the small reduction
under the valuation paid. The few others
whose rent was not increased were glad to pay.
Others, again, whose rents have increased five per cent deemed it the
most prudent course to submit, and many followed the example of the few, under
the threat of ejectments, law expenses, the roadside, buckshot and British
bayonets. These are stern and stubborn
facts which cannot be gainsaid. We now
come to the two brothers of Michael Quinn, Peter and Patrick. Peter reclaimed about three acres of his portion
consisting of 27 acres at £2 11s 8d. He
told me in the presence of Mr Michael Quinn, Cookstown, that he broke his heart
reclaiming one acre. His rent was
increased, with broken heart and all, to £3 11s 10d. He refused to pay the increased rent for the
very good reason that he could not pay the original rent. I saw his farm, and the reclaimed land would
not set at 6s an acre in any part of England or Scotland, yet £30 an acre never
reclaimed(?) . . .(unreadable). The
third brother sold his portion to a man named Keenan(?), who reclaimed a few
acres and was raised from £2 11s 8d to £4 16s 10d besides bog rent 15s, and the
bog on their own farms. The original
rent of the farm before sub-division £1 15(?)s raised to £7 15s about 40 years
ago and now again raised to £17 6s 1d, including bog rent, which is an
additional rent on the farm. The
increase of £15 16s 1d on this farm of old Michael Quin utterly beggars and
ruins his children who spend their young days trying to reclaim the
unreclaimable. At 3 per cent it is
interest for £500 and how the earl and his agents transfer forever this large
sum from the pockets of these poor men who earned it by hard work and at the
expense of much capital into their own pockets, who never expended one drop of
sweat or one penny towards its realisation.
The next townland on the earl’s estate is Evishbrook, and the
first man I met on entering it gave me the following facts and figures:- My
name is James Loughran. My father
occupied a farm containing 106 acres, at the yearly rent of £4 10s. He divided the farm between his three sons,
John, Arthur and myself. The mountain
part was about 6 pence an acre, and the few acres reclaimed by my father was
raised to 1s per acre at the time of the straight marches. My brother John reclaimed 12 acres and he is
raised to £4. Arthur sold his portion of
the farm to Patrick Loughran, who reclaimed a few acres and was raised to £6
10s; but he could not pay the rent and was evicted last year by Burly
Stuart. I reclaimed 6 acres and was
raised then to £3 10s. I took out then a
lease of lives, and while the Prince of Wales and his brother live, I cannot be
raised. But if they die, I would be a
ruined man, like the Monaghans, whom you know well. All the capital that I could realise by
farming and other ways and the labour of my life are invested in that farm
which you now see; and had Wilson, the earl, and Burly Stuart got at me now I
would be robbed of all and beggared into the bargain. I said to this poor child of toil, “Take
courage, poor man, there are better times before us, for the days of the
confiscators of your capital and labour are numbered.” The poor man raised his eyes to the heavens
and said in humble prayer, “Thank God for it;” but he added, “it is too late,
as the tenants here are already ruined by the last valuation.” The reclaimed land has raised from about 6d
an acre to10s per acre, that is near 2,000 per cent, and this rise in these
wilds ruins the tenant. “So the general
rule and general principle followed on this estate comes to this”, said I,
“that the earl and his agents expend not a farthing on the reclamation of these
wilds, wastes and stoney tracts which I now see, but when you expend from £30
to £40 per acre on their reclamation the earl and his agent raises the rent
2,000 per cent, thereby confiscating all your capital and labour and breaking
your hearts and hopes into the bargain.
Is that so?” “It is as true as
you said it, and as true as the sun gets up this morning.” I shook hands with this child of toil and
then offered up a prayer to the great Creator to infuse into the hearts of our
legislators the spirit of justice to the poor serfs and slaves of these
mountain regions. This poor man seemed
to think that the end of his lease would bring an end to his happiness on this
earth. Valuations, confiscations and
poverty with their train of evil would be the only reward of his youth and
prime spent in creating, not comforts for himself in his old age, but in
creating wealth for the lord of the castle; for his sports, for his pleasures,
for his wines. As proof that his visions
were not phantoms, but dread realities in the near future, he directed my
attention to the fate of the Monaghans after the expiration of their lease. I drove over to see the Monaghans who lived
in the adjoining townland. I knew them
all. The child who is carried to school
on the shoulders of his schoolmates can never forget that little attention, and
when I stood by the side of Edward Monaghan – those happy, happy days of my
youth, and the kindness of his two brothers John and Peter – came rushing to my
imagination, creating therein bright visions of the past that will never
return.
The history of the Monaghans should be well studied. The late Terence Monaghan came into
possession of a farm containing 217 acres, at the yearly rent of £3 8s, under
very peculiar circumstances. Sixteen
families occupied this farm in quick succession and all left it “broken”, in
the very words of Edward Monaghan.
Terence occupied a farm in Dunnamore, on the earl’s estate, containing
six acres of reclaimed land. He swapped,
as they say, this farm for the larger farm of 217 acres. He took Hugh Quin’s farm, and Hugh Quin took
his. He got a lease for Rector Stuart’s
life. He reclaimed, he paid his rent, he
reared and educated his family, and lived happy and content. He divided his farm among his four sons,
Edward, John, Peter and Patrick, thus – To Edward, 52a 3r; to John, 63a; to
Peter, 53a 2r; and to Patrick, 48a, at
the yearly rent of £2 2s each. These
four young men got married, built houses and reclaimed rocky and mountainy
land, which seemed to me to be beyond the powers of man to bring into the state
of cultivation. Being strong, young and
of giant strength, they rolled those huge boulders from their fastnesses for
ages and into the fences and into pits dug into the earth, but at a great
loss. Three sons of Edward Monaghan
broke their hearts rolling these stones and died. The term of this lease expired in 1870. The late Mr Little, who was then agent, sent
the valuer and raised the rent to the following figures:- Edward was raised
from £2 2s to £10 8s plus 10s bog rent; John from £2 2s to £9 10s, plus 10s bog
rent; Peter from £2 2s to £10 8s plus 10s bog rent, Patrick from £2 2s to £9
plus 10s bog rent, thus increasing the rent on this farm from £8 8s to £41 6s
without ever expending one farthing. Now
for the effects of this increase on the capital and labour of these poor men. Before this increase these families could pay
their way, and though not very rich were respectable, happy and content. But since the time of the increase all is
changed. They lost confidence, hope and
independence, and as a consequence they became poor, wretched and miserable, so
poor that Peter was obliged in his old age to leave wife and family and go to
America. Their rents are increased £33
by the late earl and Mr Little. Now £33
per annum is good interest for £1,000 on land property. This being so the earl transfers £1,000 which
in right and justice belonged to the Monaghans and was created by the capital
and labour of those serfs and slaves.
These poor families are now poor and wretched but the earls wallow in
their lordly castles at the expense of the reclaimer, who cannot at present
command a bag of Indian meal. But this
earl says the parish priest is the best landlord in his parish. Well, when he is the best what must the worst
be?
CHARLES QUIN, PP
The following reply from, P M'Namee, the parish priest of Kildress, was published in "
The Freeman's Journal of Tuesday 28 June 1881
LANDLORDISM IN ULSTER
TO THE EDITOR OF THE FREEMAN
Kildress, June 23rd
TO THE EDITOR OF THE FREEMAN
Kildress, June 23rd
Sir-as the name of the parish
priest of Kildress has been unnecessarily been imported into the controversy at
present going on between Rev. C Quin P.P. Kilevy, and Earl Castlestewart’s two
agents, I think it well to make a few brief remarks to set myself right with my
parishioners and the public. I don’t
suppose I would have taken any notice of the references made to me, but would
have passed over in silence, were it not that one of my parishioners observed
the insinuations made against me and urged upon me the necessity of a
reply. First reference to me; Rev C Quin
represents the two worthy agents, “Tanner and Burleigh Stuart,” as he terms
then, but I shall call them Mt Tener and Major Stuart, as plotting and planning
to get an increase of 30% added to the rental and
then they should say to each other “Let us lower the parish priest and a few
others for appearance sake and to hoodwink the rest, and then go on increasing
the rent 10, 20, 30, 40, 100 on the remainder making a net gain of 30 per cent
on the entire rental.” The manifest
insinuation here is that the parish priest is lowered for the purpose of closing
his mouth, and in order that the agents might [illegible] his flock as they pleased, or in
other words that the parish priest would sacrifice the interests of his flock
to his own private gain. And, as a result
of the reduction of his rent, the parish priest saying a little further on to
Father Quin that the Earl is the best landlord in the parish, although painted
by Fr Quin in rather dark colours. Now I
meet those two references to my name in this way. In the first place my rent has not been lowered. Whether it may be lowered or not by the late
valuation is a matter of which I have no official information either from land valuers,
agent or landlord. That it should be
lowered and that too considerably, is a thing which all must admit who know
anything at all about the farm. It is a
matter of surprise to anyone knowing ought about the farm how such an extravagant
rent was imposed upon it. Those who know
the value of land generally have about £15 per annum on it as something like a
fair rent. Others put the figure below
that and still £23 per annum is the present rent. Now I can be no means agree with Fr Quin in
the plotting [illegible] for which he give the agents credit. And should there be a plot or plan in the
reduction of my rent and that of a few others (if they really have lowered
them). Fr Quin surely would not imagine
that I would be a party to the plot and sacrifice the interests of my people
for my own private advantage. Still this
is the natural inference drawn from his letter by those who took the trouble of
reading it. Second reference to me: I
should have said, I would support, as a result of getting my rent reduced, that
Earl Castlestuart was the best landlord in my parish. I plead guilty to the charge of having said
so, although I sais so in a private and friendly communication, which I(
addressed to Fr Quin a short time ago. I
leave it then, to his own good taste whether or not he should have made use of
that expression and parade it for his own purpose in the columns of the “Freeman”. If Fr Quin should succeed in getting a
commission appointed to look into relations existing between landlord and
tenant in the parish, he might then ascertain how much I was astray. Any parties to whom I spoke to on the subject
all agree in saying that the Earl is the best landlord in the parish. However it is not in my present purpose to
act the part of apologist for the Earl in his dealings with his tenants,
neither shall I enter on the subject of the arbitrary rising of rent on the
tenants’ improvements by the Earl or any other landlord. It may be that I hold as advanced views on
this subject as Fr Quin or many others. However
there is one thing I will say, and it is this: That if Fr Quin were looking for
cases of rack-renting, he might have commenced nearer home and on properties
with which h should be more conversant, but perhaps relations near and dear
still living on these properties prevented the exposure. He could /should [?] have commenced on
properties where there have been as many as three revaluations within the
memory of living men and where the tenants are in such a state of poverty as
that many of them do not have a four footed animal about their houses. Or he should have commenced on properties
where the ejectment processes have been falling like snowflakes during the last
six months. Should he pass these by in
silence, some will not be slow in attributing motives for such conduct, and let
him take care if the motives are mot already spoken of. In conclusion I shall say that I think I have
the welfare of my people very much in heart and I should gladly do all in my
power to improve their condition. No
doubt Fr Quin thinks they are sadly neglected; hence the necessity for his
travelling down so far, and his warm advocacy on their behalf. I am sure the people are ever grateful and
can appreciate his services at their proper value. – I remain, Mr Editor, yours
truly,
P M’Namee P.P.
P.S.-Please give this an early insertion
as a matter of simple justice and fair play. P. M’N.
.
