Irish Emigration and The Tenure of Land in Ireland/Chapter 3

by Frederick Temple Blackwood

CHAPTER III

——————

Having shown that the "exterminating policy" of the Irish landlords has resulted in the existence at the census of 1861, of a greater number of holdings of all sizes in Ireland than there were in 1851, and of 160,000 more tenant farmers of fifteen acres and upwards than there were twenty years ago, (and on referring to the evidence given before Mr. Maguire's Committee it will be seen that, in the unanimous opinion of Judge Longfield, of Mr. Dillon, of Mr. M'Carthy Downing, of the Catholic Bishop of Cloyne, and of Mr. Curling,^[1] fifteen acres are the smallest area which can be cultivated with advantage, or over which those gentlemen would themselves be willing to extend the protection of a lease,) I would have passed to the third point in our inquiry, had it not been objected that I have mistaken the nature of the accusations directed against the landlord class in Ireland, who, I am informed, have been so ruthlessly gibbeted, not exactly on account of their own acts, but as representatives of those bygone generations to whose vicious mismanagement of their estates the present misfortunes of the country are to be attributed. That such is not the issue raised in the various manifestoes which I have undertaken to consider, will be at once apparent on referring to them; but, as it may be useful to ascertain what have been some of the historical sources of Ireland's economic difficulties,^[2] I will endeavour to discriminate between the share in them attributable to the former owners of the soil and that which is due to other causes.

The writer who thus proposes to antedate our responsibilities seems satisfied he has arrived at the fountain-head of Ireland's calamities when he points his finger at the Irish proprietory of former days; nor does he dream of inquiring whether the landlord of 70 or 80 years ago may not himself have been a creature of circumstance, involved in the complexities of a system of which he was as much the victim as his tenants. And here again I eliminate from the discussion all reference to the supposed personal characteristics of the class. The popular conception of the Irish country gentleman of former days is principally derived from works of fiction and caricature, and is probably as correct as is usual with information gathered from such sources. In many respects it stands in favourable juxtaposition with the picture drawn of his English cotemporary by Macaulay, though the noxious influences which emanated from the policy pursued by England towards the Catholics of Ireland must have been as demoralizing to him as it was to every other member of the dominant community. But with any estimate of his individual vices or virtues we are not now concerned. Of one thing alone can we be certain—that in dealing with his property he pursued his own advantage with more or less intelligence, and in doing so exercised a right not only legitimate in itself, but which has been universally recognized as the mainspring of human progress. But it is objected that the practical results of his proceedings have been over-population, rack-rents, and an exodus of 2,000,000 souls. The question is, have these phenomena followed in such direct sequence as is alleged, or have other influences, independent of the landlord's agency, vitiated a system which otherwise would not have been unhealthy? Now, of the three evils he is supposed to have occasioned, the two last are the direct consequences of the first. A rack-rent is the product of competition, and both competition and emigration are the results of over-population. The true measure, therefore, of the responsibility of the Irish landlord is the share he has had in disturbing the equilibrium which ought to have been maintained between the increase of population and the development of the country's industrial resources.

But, first, had space permitted, I should have wished to exhibit, as I have already done with regard to emigration, the true nature and origin of the rack-renting system, which is invariably described as the offspring of landlord rapacity. As a matter of fact, it does not appear that the Irish landlords of former days dealt harshly with their tenantry. Even Mr. Butt admits that during the whole of the 18th century there were scarcely any evictions, and that long leases were almost universal;^[3] while Judge Longfield states that so late as 1835 there was very little land in the southern and western counties not on lease, and that "most of the leases were all in the tenants' favour." Nor is it alleged that the landlords themselves exacted exorbitant rents; the principal complaint against them is that they leased their lands to middlemen, and that sometimes they were separated from the actual occupiers of the soil by a dozen derivative tenures. From this fact it is evident that the rents they charged must have been comparatively moderate. But long leases at moderate rates are hardly a criminal arrangement. It is true the increasing pressure of a teeming population, and the natural instinct which, Judge Longfield tells us, is inherent in every Irish tenant—to turn himself into a landlord if he gets the chance—resulted in a state of things replete with mischief. But for the development of this unexpected phase in the Irish land system, the proprietor is by no means responsible to the degree which is supposed. Up to nearly the close of the last century the great proportion of the country was in pasture, and the population was less than half of what it amounted to in 1841. The holdings were of considerable size,^[4] and when a farm was let the landlord never dreamt of its being converted into tillage, and no provisions against subdivision were introduced. But as population multiplied the situation changed, and the enormous rise in the price of grain and provisions on the breaking out of the French war made it the interest of the tenant to subdivide his land as minutely as he could.^[5] He accordingly introduced an Irish edition of what is known as 'la petite culture.'

It is true most of the later leases contained clauses against subletting, but an unexpected legal subtlety rendered them practically inoperative, and when attempts were made to stop an innovation, which in no way benefited the landlord, most proprietors found, after going to great expense that they were completely powerless.^[6] The practice consequently spread, and an obnoxious class of middlemen, as they were termed, relet the greater proportion of the soil of Ireland at rack-rents to their teeming countrymen.^[7] But though the majority of middlemen became constituted in this manner, there is no doubt that sometimes they were placed in possession of land by the owners, with the express intention they should sublet, and it is with this method of procedure adopted by a few that the entire class have been credited. But though the experiment turned out unsuccessfully, there was nothing at the time to warn the proprietor against it, and it can be easily conceived that many a landlord, speaking neither the language, nor professing the same religion as his tenants, might consider it not only a very convenient, but a very popular alternative to give a long lease at a low rent to some person less alien to the peasants in race and religion than himself, upon the understanding that he might relet it in smaller areas.^[8] If the event proved unfortunate, it was not because the tenant was a middleman, but because he dealt

with his comrades and co-religionists more unmercifully than might have been expected.^[9]

Whether even the middleman is deserving of all the abuse which is heaped upon him may be a question. To drive a hard bargain is a failing not confined to that class of persons; and it has always seemed to me that the moral responsibility of accepting a competition rent is pretty, much

the same as that of profiting by the market rate of wages. If the first is frequently exorbitant, the latter is as often inadequate, and inadequate wages are as fatal to efficiency as a rack rent is to production; though each be the result of voluntary adjustment, it is the same abject misery and absence of

SUBDIVISION OF FARMS IN IRELAND. Extracted from Report of Devon Commission

an alternative which rule the rate of both; if the unhappy condition of the Irish cottier tenant of former days may be referred to the one, the physical and mental degradation of the labouring classes in the Black Country, as revealed in the report of a late Commission, is even a more startling illustration of the other.

In fact the middlemen of Ireland were rather the exponents than the cause of the people's misery, and, though piled ten deep one above the other, on a single tenancy, they no more occasioned rack rents than the degrees on a barometer occasion the atmospheric pressure they record. Derivative tenancies, cottier allotments, potato cultivation, low wages, emigration have been the rude alleviations—not the origin—of the country's destitution; just as half-rations are the alternative for short provisions,—or any wages are preferable to starvation—a patch of ground, at a rack rent, to serfdom and 3d. a day,- and a free farm in America to digging another man's potato garden in Connemara. Similar phenomena would have declared themselves under any system of land tenure, and in any country where the population had expanded in a degree disproportionate to its capacities for self-sustenation. If it were otherwise, every perpetuity in Ireland would be a land of Goshen,^[10] and Ulster a paradise where rack-rents and evictions were unknown.^[11] But it is an acknowledged fact that the low-let perpetuities of the South and West only exaggerate the worst features of the worst estates,^[12] and in Ulster, though under a more subtle guise, rack-rents and the middleman are as rampant as they used to be in Connaught.^[13]

This last statement requires explanation. In Ulster it is the custom for the incoming tenant to pay the outgoing tenant a sum of money—nominally, for his improvements, really—for an indeterminate value called his "goodwill." If the worth of the improvement corresponded with the amount of the payment, the arrangement would be unobjectionable. But it seldom does. An incoming tenant will give openly, or surreptitiously, £5, £10, or £20 an acre for land let at high rent, in a bad condition, and without improvements, the figure generally increasing in an inverse ratio to the size of the farm and the poverty of the district, the largest tenant prices prevailing in Donegal,^[14] and the most moderate in Down, while the payment is almost invariably made with money borrowed at a high rate of interest."^[15] This interest is, of course, a second or rack rent paid to the lender of the purchase money, and the recipient who walks off with it is neither more nor less than a bastard middleman^[16] who takes a fine in lieu of an annual payment for a non-existing value. As a consequence, the new tenant commences his enterprise burdened with debt and destitute of capital. Hence low forming, inadequate profits, uneducated children, and too frequently, the ruin and emigration of the Ulster tenant, in spite of indulgent landlords and a secure tenure.

It is amusing to observe that the same persons who are anxious to mitigate the effects of competition by imposing on the owner of the land a rent fixed by Act of Parliament, always contend that the person in whose favour this beneficial interest is to be created should have the right to dispose of it to the highest bidder:^[17] that is to say, though I am to be precluded from receiving the market value of my land,—my tenant is to be allowed to do so, by extracting a fine from whoever may be induced to make the most extravagant offer for his goodwill. It is hardly perhaps to be expected that the advocates of such measures should condescend to show how far their proposals are compatible with justice, and the narrowest interpretations cf the rights of property, but at least they ought to prove them conducive to the agricultural prosperity of the country, and consonant with public policy. But as the result of such an arrangement would be to fill the majority of the farms in Ireland, in the course of a few years, with tenants paying a double rent, i.e. the Parliamentary rent to their landlords, and the interest on the fine squeezed out of them by the lucky individual to whom Parliament had attributed a share in the original owner's proprietory rights, it is difficult to see what could be the advantage of the change. It may indeed be urged that the vice in the system would only blaze into life on a change of tenancy:—but changes of tenancy are continually taking place:—not only by the surrender of farms, but on the death of every occupant. His sons succeed:—they all consider they have an equal claim to the holding:—if permitted they subdivide it;^[18]—if not the eldest has to pay the others their share of the father's beneficial interest; and the competition price is their standard of valuation.^[19] Consequently the permanent tenant finds himself in the same position as if he had bought the farm from a stranger:—that is to say, destitute of capital and probably in debt:—while the brothers walk off with a sum of money which if the rent is as fair as the theory of the arrangement pre-supposes, can represent no real value,^[20] and to which therefore they have much less right than the landlord, whom it has been the intention of Parliament to debar from such exactions. Now, it is not pretended that the imposition of rack rents is at all a general practice with proprietors. The high value of the goodwill on many estates is the index of the landlord's moderation, and his virtues are put up to auction in the same lot with his land.^[21] The rents of Ireland are comparatively low,^[22] and fines, which is the worst form of rent, are never taken: to transfer therefore the power of exaction created by competition from the landlord, against whose interest it is to enforce it, and to hand it over to the tenant, who would never fail to do so, would hardly be a change for the better; yet so little is this question understood

that you will hear the same person who would vehemently denounce a landlord for insisting on a rack rent, detail with complacency the enormous sums of money which this or that person has obtained for his tenant right, from some ill-advised successor to his farm, whom he has skinned by the process, and left stranded for life on the barren acres:^[23] Yet it is in the prosperity of this latter individual, on whose solvency the proper cultivation of the land will depend, rather than in that of the outgoing; tenant, that both the landlord and the community is interested.

From the foregoing considerations it is apparent that competition is an irrepressible force:^[24] that if stifled in one direction, it will burst out in another; that a system of compulsory rents would only lend to its manifestation, in a more objectionable form; and that as a matter of policy, it is better that those alone should have the opportunity of taking advantage of it, who are the least likely to abuse their power.^[25]

Wherever you go the same deleterious influence signalizes its presence by analogous, if not by identical effects. In the South and West the poison has infiltrated the system itself, breeding monstrous excrescences in the shape of the middleman and the rack-rented cottier. In the North it has manifested its presence by a parasitical growth of inflated tenant-right prices,^[26] as effectually fatal to the healthy expansion of our agricultural industry. The original cause of the disease is everywhere the same. The disproportion of the opportunities of employment to population has resulted in universal pressure and universal competition,—competition in the labour market, already modified by emigration; competition in the land market—only to be relieved by the application to more profitable occupations of so much of the productive energies of the nation, as may be in excess of the requirements of a perfect agriculture.

But, it may he objected that even though emigration, rack rents—and their natural result—low farming, are equally rife under every description of tenure, and cannot therefore wholly be set down to the pernicious influence of the owners of landed property, yet, some human agency must be accountable for the perennial desolation of a lovely and fertile island, watered by the fairest streams, caressed by a clement atmosphere, held in the embraces of a sea whose affluence fills the noblest harbours of the world, and inhabited by a race—valiant, generous, tender—gifted beyond measure with the power of physical endurance, and graced with the liveliest intelligence.

It is to the discovery of this enigma that I now address myself, and in its solution it is possible we may find an answer to the famous question originally put to the Kilkenny Parliament, and lately repeated with considerable point by Mr. Bright,—"How is it that the King is none the richer for Ireland?"

Of course, any perfect retrospect of the economic career of Ireland would necessarily involve a review of her political and religious history, but so large a treatment of the subject would not be adapted to the present cursory discussion. I am only anxious to point out, in a very few sentences, what those influences have been which have as effectually stunted the development of our material prosperity as penal laws and religious intolerance have vitiated our social atmosphere. I allude to the commercial jealousies of Great Britain.

It has been rather the custom of late to represent the landed interest of Great Britain as the sole inventors and patentees of protection. The experience of Ireland does not confirm this theory. During the course of the last 250 years we have successively tasted the tender mercies of every interest in turn—whether landed, trading, or commercial—and have little reason to pronounce one less selfish than another. From Queen Elizabeth's reign until within a few years of the Union the various commercial confraternities of Great Britain never for a moment relaxed their relentless grip on the trades of Ireland. One by one, each of our nascent industries was either strangled in its birth, or handed over, gagged and bound, to the jealous custody of the rival interest in England, until at last every fountain of wealth was hermetically sealed, and even the traditions of commercial enterprise have perished through desuetude.

The owners of England's pastures opened the campaign. As early as the commencement of the l6th century the beeves of Roscommon, Tipperary, and Queen's County undersold the produce of the English grass counties in their own market.^[27] By an Act of the 20th of Elizabeth Irish cattle were declared a "nuisance," and their importation was prohibited. Forbidden to send our beasts alive across the Channel, we killed them at home, and began to supply the sister country with cured provisions. A second Act of Parliament imposed prohibitory duties on salted meats. The hides of the animals still remained, but the same influence soon put a stop to the importation of leather. Our cattle trade abolished, we tried sheep farming. The sheep breeders of England immediately took alarm, and Irish wool was declared contraband by a Parliament of Charles II. Headed in this direction we tried to work up the raw material at home, but this created the greatest outcry of all. Every maker of fustian, flannel, and broadcloth in the country rose up in arms, and by an Act of William III. the woollen industry of Ireland was extinguished, and 20,000 manufacturers left the island. The easiness of the Irish labour market and the cheapness of provisions still giving us an advantage, even though we had to import our materials, we next made a dash at the silk business; but the silk manufacturer proved as pitiless as the woolstaplers. The cotton manufacturer, the sugar refiner, the soap and candle maker (who especially dreaded the abundance of our kelp), and any other trade or interest that thought it worth its while to petition was received by Parliament with the same partial cordiality,^[28] until the most searching scrutiny failed to detect a single vent through which it was possible for the hated industry of Ireland to respire. But, although excluded from the markets of Britain, a hundred harbours gave her access to the universal sea. Alas! a rival commerce on her own element was still less welcome to England, and as early as the reign of Charles II. the Levant, the ports of Europe, and the oceans beyond the Cape were forbidden to the flag of Ireland. The colonial trade alone was in any manner open,—if that could be called an open trade which for a long time precluded all exports whatever, and excluded from direct importation to Ireland such important articles as sugar, cotton, and tobacco. What has been the consequence of such a system, pursued with relentless pertinacity for 250 years? This: that, debarred from every other trade and industry, the entire nation flung itself back upon "the land" with as fatal an impulse as when a river whose current is suddenly impeded rolls back and drowns the valley it once fertilized.^[29]

For a long time, however, the limits of their own island proved sufficient for the three or four millions which then inhabited it. The cheapness of provisions in Ireland used to be the bugbear of the English manufacturer. But each successive century found the nation more straitened within its borders. At last a choice had to be made between the sacrifice of domestic happiness or of physical comfort; the natural liveliness of their affections, combined with a buoyant temperament, led the people to accept the latter alternative.^[30] The mildness of the climate, the cheapness of the fuel, and above all, the suitableness of the potato to what is technically called "la petite culture" contributed to turn the scale, and early marriages continued to remain a characteristic of the Irish peasantry.^[31] Even had the landlords interfered, their remonstrances would have been in vain, and, the downward impulse once communicated, acquired a continually accelerated momentum, for the simple reason that each succeeding generation was accustomed from infancy to a lower standard of comfort than that which had satisfied their fathers.^[32] Extraneous circumstances, such as the rise of prices during the French wars, stimulated the popular tendency to self expansion, until by a logical sequence of events the spectacle was presented of a nation doubling its population every fifty years, yet entirely dependent for its support upon an agricultural area which had been found barely sufficient for its needs when it was a third less numerous; under such conditions, high rents, low wages, and all the other indications of destitution would be as inevitable as famine prices in a beleaguered city.

But I may be told this frantic clinging of the Irish to the land is natural to their genius, and not a result of commercial restrictions. History supplies the perfect refutation of such a theory: Though the hostile tariff of England comprehended almost every article produced in Ireland; one single exception was permitted. From the reign of William III. the linen trade of Ireland has been free; as a consequence, at this day Irish linens are exported in enormous quantities to every quarter of the globe, and their annual value nearly equals half the rental of the island.

Many attempts were made by the rival interest in England to deprive us of this boon, and in 1785 a petition—signed by 117,000 persons—was presented^[33] by Manchester, praying for the prohibition of Irish linens, but justice and reason for once prevailed, and the one surviving industry of Ireland was spared. How has it repaid the clemency of the British Parliament? By dowering the crown of England with as fair a cluster of flourishing towns and loyal centres of industry as are to be found in any portion of the Empire. Would you see what Ireland might have been—go to Derry, to Belfast, to Lisburn, and by the exceptional prosperity which has been developed, not only within a hundred towns and villages, but for miles and miles around them, you may measure the extent of the injury we have sustained.^[34] Would you ascertain how the numerical strength of a nation may be multiplied, while the status of each individual that comprises it is improved,—go to Belfast, where (within a single generation) the population has quadrupled, and the wages of labour have more than doubled.^[35]

How powerfully the development of manufactures in the North of Ireland has contributed to the relief of the agricultural classes of Ulster, by giving the tenant-farmer an opportunity of apprenticeing some of his sons to business instead of subdividing among them his diminutive holding, by enabling the cottier tenant to supplement his

agricultural earnings with hand-loom weaving, and by a general alleviation of the pressure upon the land, I need not describe. These and many other considerations of the sort are too patent to need suggestion. It will be sufficient for me to record my profound conviction—a conviction which, perhaps, may be shared by some of my readers—that had Ireland only been allowed to develope the other innumerable resources at her command, as she has developed the single industry in which she was permitted to embark, the equilibrium between the land and the population dependent upon the land would never have been disturbed, nor would the relations between landlord and tenant have become a subject of anxiety.

I will not pursue this portion of the inquiry further. Feeling convinced that our best chance of dealing with the difficulties of Ireland is to arrive at a correct appreciation of their origin, I have done my best to detail the facts which prove that it is unjust to refer them wholly or to any extraordinary degree to the influence of the owners of landed property in Ireland, while I have indicated a succession of circumstances amply sufficient to account for them. If my language has betrayed too warm a sympathy with the class of which I am a member, the groundlessness of the accusations with which it has been assailed must plead my excuse. No such instinctive partiality has extended to the disposition of my facts or the array of my arguments. If I seem to have suppressed all cognizance of the instances of harshness and mismanagement laid to the charge of individual landlords by men of the highest honour, it is not because I do not acknowledge and deplore their existence, but because they are so manifestly exceptional as to have produced an inappreciable effect on the current of events we are considering. In dealing with the economic interests of a great country, it is on the essential forces which are producing specific results, rather than on the capricious accidents of the situation, that we must fix our attention.

If, on consideration, it should be found that the responsibilities of the landed proprietors for the ills of Ireland have been grossly exaggerated, I have sufficient faith in the generosity of their accusers to believe that they will rejoice rather than regret to discover that so numerous and important a section of their fellow-countrymen neither are nor have been unworthy of their esteem; and my conviction gathers strength from the fact that our conclusions on such a point cannot materially affect any pending controversy between the landlords and their tenantry. If an alteration is to be made in the tenure of land in Ireland, that alteration must be founded on abstract principles of justice, and the requirements of present policy. Many eminent statesmen view with regret the relative position of the Catholic and Protestant clergy of Ireland. But whenever the time arrives for effecting an improvement, the change will be made—not because a century ago Irish Bishops were sometimes lax and individual clergymen inefficient, but because it has been always required by justice and is now recommended by expediency. By a parity of reasoning it would be as great an outrage to visit with penal legislation the recent purchaser of a property in the Encumbered Estates Court because fifty years ago the grandfather of the former proprietor created 40s freeholders (a tenure of which Mr. Butt, I observe, speaks almost with approval) and took the best rent, as it would be to load the woollen manufacturers of Lancashire with the responsibility of Ireland's misfortunes because the particular industry in which they are interested owes more than any other its present prosperity to the cruel policy towards Ireland inaugurated by their predecessors.^[36]

1. By fifteen acres, 15 Irish acres=24 statute acres were probably meant by these gentlemen. I should not myself have drawn so hard a line or passed so sweeping a condemnation on farms of this size.
2. Though intimately connected with her economical career, I do not profess in this treatise to enter upon the consideration of Ireland's political and social difficulties.
3. In earlier days tenancies at will seem to have been preferred by the tenants to a lease. "Irish landlords," says Spenser, "do not use to set out their lands in farm, or for terms of years, but only from year to year, and some during pleasure; neither indeed will the Irish husbandman otherwise take his land than so long as he lists himself."
4.  Both the soil and climate of Ireland are peculiarly adapted to pasturage, and consequently to large farms, but there was a peculiar reason why, during the earlier half of the last century, the holdings were necessarily of a considerable size.

   Amongst the many infamous statutes known as the Penal Laws, was one which precluded Catholics from purchasing lands, from holding a lease of more than thirty-one years, or from deriving from the permanent occupation of land any profit in excess of one-third of the rent; consequently the proprietors of estates had no option—as Mr. Thornton very justly remarks—than to let their lands to the few capitalists who could legally occupy them. I have placed in an appendix Mr. Thornton's admirable description of the circumstances under which Ireland continued to remain a grass country until the close of the last century. (See Appendix, p. 117.)

   "The Protestant landlords also suffered indirectly from the operation of the same penal laws; for in letting these estates, they were to a great degree confined in the selection cf their tenants, to those who alone could enjoy any permanent tenure under them, and were exclusively entitled to the election franchise. Many landlords parted with tho whole or a great portion of their property for long terms, and thus avoided all immediate contact with the inferior occupiers, so that all the duties of a landlord were left for performance to a middleman. The latter, on the other hand, in the favourable position in which the laws had indirectly placed him as regarded the proprietor, dictated very frequently his own terms to the landlord; and restrictive covenants against subletting or subdividing were seldom inserted."—Digest Devon Commission, Summary, p. 1109.

5. "The introduction of the 40s franchise and its extension to the Catholic population also acted as an inducement both to the proprietors and to the middlemen to subdivide and to sublet. The war with France raised considerably the profits of the occupier, who was thus enabled to pay a large rent to the mesne lessee. These causes produced throughout the country a class of intermediate proprietors, known by the name of middlemen, whose decline after the cessation of the war, and the fall of prices in 1815, brought with it much of the evils we have witnessed of late years."—Ibid.
6. "Many of the witnesses, however, seemed to be impressed with the idea, that even with the assistance of the subletting Acts, there is frequently much expense and difficulty in preventing subletting in the case of leasehold farms; and this opinion has tended to prevent the grant of leases."—Dig. Dev. Com. Summary, p. 418.
7.  "The high prices of agricultural produce during the late continental war, and the consequently increased value of land, appear to have much increased subletting, by enabling the large farmers, without personal trouble, to derive from their leaseholds considerable incomes in the form of profit rents." Ibid. p. 418.
   "Lord George Hill records, among other facts relating to rundale, that one person held his farm in forty-two different patches, and at last gave it up in despair of finding it; and that a field of half an acre was held by twenty-two different persons."
   "The evidence proves clearly that these malpractices have produced the results which might naturally be expected, and that sub-tenants, the tenants of lands much subdivided, and of farms held in rundale, are in general excessively poor, and their lands much exhausted."—Ibid. p. 419.
   "It will be observed that several of the covenants above mentioned have for their object the prevention of the subdivision of farms, which is alleged to be so common and so injurious an effect of leases."
   "But none of these covenants provide against the possibility of the farm, upon the death of the occupier, becoming subdivided, either by the provisions of his will, or by the operation of the statute of distributions, although it appears that these are the causes most frequently operating to produce subdivision."—Ibid. p. 237.
    " This tendency to sublet even discourages the building of cottages."—Dig. Dev. Com. p. 49.
   "Some proprietors felt disposed to build cottages for them, (the cottiers on their estate) with small allotments, held direct from themselves; but the chief difficulty in this case is, to secure that the original evil may not thus be increased by still further increasing the glut of the labour market, which would be the effect, unless the farmer can be restrained from still bringing in additional people for the mere profit he may derive in letting to them a house or garden; this tendency has long been felt, and is likely to continue the chief difficulty in the management of property."—Ibid. p. 130.
   The following is a fair example of the history of most Irish estates.
   "This estate has been for ages in the family.
   "Between the years 1777 and 1787, James Lord Caher let great portions of it on sixty-one years' leases. Lessees were conditioned in all cases not to sublet, and in most cases to build a good house on the farm.
   "It is almost needless to state that there is scarcely an instance of a house being built by the lessee of the slightest value; and every lessee has sublet generally to a great extent.
   "These farms at the time they were let were all in grass, with scarcely any inhabitants on them, and the lessee held the whole farm.
   "There was no use in the head landlord attempting by law to have the clauses in the lease observed, as no jury would find a verdict against a tenant, for the probability was that some of the jurors were in the same state as the defendants as regarded subletting."—Dig. Dev. Com. p. 437.
   "Subletting was barred in all these leases; but the landlord never could have found a jury to put the clause in force. The late Lord Glengall endeavoured to break some of these leases thirty years ago, which were proved to have been forgeries by connivance of the agent, after the decease of the late lord's predecessor; but, though judges charged in favour of the landlord, and the Superior Courts gave verdicts also in his favour, still the county juries never would agree, and the landlord failed. "Timber and slates are given to them by the landlord, consequently the estate is now, on these new farms, varying from twenty to fifty acres, studded with slate houses." Dig. Dev. Com. p. 437. 

   "Between the years 1780 and 1787, James Lord Caher let immense tracts of land in large farms to single individuals. They have now enjoyed them for sixty-one years, and the leases are about expiring—some have expired. Those farms have been sublet in the most astonishing manner, and except upon one or two of those great farms, varying from 1,000 acres to 100, I do not think there are above two or three lessees now in possession of any part of those lands which were let to them by James Lord Caher.

   "They are entirely new people brought in?—Entirely a new population. The lands were altogether in grass in those years. They were great grazing farms. In the high times during the war, those lessees sublet their lands ad infinitum, and became middlemen; and when the peace came prices fell, and the middlemen became totally ruined.

   "What course has your lordship taken upon them?—I will take the first case which presents itself to me in the statement, Kilcoran, 161. That is 281 acres Irish, and the rent formerly paid was 13s 10d an Irish acre.

   "What the sub-rents were you do not know?—No. The lease was for sixty-one years, let in 1782. It was completely deluged with paupers, and the lessee himself did not hold above sixteen acres. One house, inhabited by a most notorious ruffian, was thrown down and the man turned out. The land was squared as much as possible into from fifteen to twenty acre farms to residents, the rest of the people still remaining on the lands in their houses . . .

   "Are they numerous?—Very numerous, I should say. The land is remarkably good, generally speaking, and worth from about 30s to 35s an Irish acre.

   "As what they had been in the habit of paying?—I cannot  exactly answer that question for this very simple reason—the lessee, the middleman, being in abject poverty from idleness, took fines, so that it is impossible to tell."

   Rt. Hon. the Earl of Glengall, Dig. Dev. Com. p. 278.

   Evidence of Wm. Hamilton, Esq. Agent.

   "Did any of these old leases contain the non-letting clauses?—Yes; but they were inoperative.
   "Do you know of any cases in which an attempt was made to oblige the tenants to act under them?—No; because the law was, that any permission or toleration of a breach by the landlord, did away with the covenant altogether until the recent act; then, as in most instances, partial consents were given, or breaches overlooked; it became a matter quite hopeless on the part of the landlord to enforce the covenant when the evils of subletting became apparent."—Digest, Dev. Com. p. 281.

   Evidence of Mr. Ed. Byne, Farmer.

   "Do the landlords permit the sale ? — They are very seldom consulted; they would not be satisfied generally. In Lord Carrick's leases there was a covenant against subletting, still the tenants broke through that, and the trustees could not prevent them doing so."—Ibid. p. 315.

   William Ford, Esq. Sessional Solicitor for County Meath, Land Agent and Town Clerk to the Corporation of city of Dublin.

   "What do you conceive to be a power which could be fairly given to prevent too minute subdivisions?—If I were going to make a law to regulate the tenure of land, I certainly would make it part of that law to prevent the too minute subdivision of it, because I would coerce by the law the parties to send their families to earn their bread at different trades. That would create manufacture, and put them in other callings, and they have now other countries to go to, which would lead to emigration. Without compulsion they would learn trades and business, and go abroad of their own accord, and perhaps return to the hive enriched."—Ibid p. 424.  

   Richard White, Esq. Land Proprietor.

   "What clauses are there in your leases in reference to subletting or subdividing the lands? In some of my leases since the year 1832, there are clauses against subletting, but I am sorry to say I have not put them in force. In fact I think it a dangerous thing in Ireland to do it.
   "What then is likely to be the consequence?—That is one of the most difficult questions. I am perfectly convinced, if there could be an end, generally speaking, to subletting, it would be one of the greatest blessings that could occur to the country; and in order to do that—I am speaking now from experience—if landlords could only give sufficient land, not too much nor too little, to a man, it would be the best thing they could do. If a landlord gives a large farm, there is no doubt, as soon as a son marries and the daughter-in-law is brought in, the son gets a part, and the second and third son the same, so that it is cut up into small bits, and when it comes into the landlord's hands it is over-populated. He goes upon the sweeping system, and he is held up as a cruel man; but a landlord cannot help doing it. If there was a law passed of a strict nature to prevent subletting, it would be a great advantage to the country. The tenants would be obliged to send some of their children out into the world, and to provide for them in some other way—a thing seldom dreamt of." Dig. Dev. Com. p. 424.

   John Hancock, Esq. Agent to Lord Lurgan (Ulster).

   "Is there much subletting or subdivision of farms?—Yes, subdivision prevails to a great extent. Every tenant, if permitted, would divide his farm, in equal shares, amongst all his sons . . .
   "On leases, as soon as a son marries, he builds a room, or a 'bay,' as it is called, to his father's house, and gets a share of his father's land. The linen manufacture offers the strongest inducement to subdivision, because a very small portion of ground, in addition to the looms, will support a family.  The effects of subdivision are very bad; first, the land is cut into such small patches, that a plough and horses, in many cases, will hardly turn in the field; and a large quantity of ground is lost in fences; habits of slovenliness and idleness is increased; and, as I have already stated, the most subdivided leases are the worst paid, although cheap, and the places are in the worst condition. I oppose subdivision all I can, but there is no duty connected with the management of property more difficult to be performed. . . . The sons have been brought up ignorant of any other occupation . . . . What are they to do? . . . . Subletting also prevails to a very large extent. The high prices that weavers will give for houses and small gardens offer great temptations to the farmer."—Dig. Dev. p. 425.

   Evidence of J. V. Stuart, Esq. Land Proprietor, and Magistrate.

   "In answer to that question I should state a practice which exists only in this country, and in a very remote part of it, and it is this, that they have gone on subdividing so far that instead of its being called a 'cow's grass' it is gone down to the "cow's foot, which is one-fourth of a cow's grass—nay, they have gone so low as a "cow's toe,' which is one-eighth of a cow's grass.
   "To what extent is the subletting or subdividing of farms carried out, and is it permitted by the landlords?—Subletting or subdividing existed formerly to a great extent, and it is still universal where the landlord or agent is not most vigilant; it is generally to provide for tenants' children, but often to exact income from cottiers. Its effects are certain, and generally proximate pauperism; generally it is against the landlord's consent, and is prevented by limiting the quantity of fuel. Ejectment is an example, and watchfulness on the part of the bailiff when it can be secured.
   "What are the effects of subletting on the accumulation and introduction of capital, and also on population?—It puts an absolute stop to the accumulation of capital, in the same proportion that consolidation assists its accumulation; and, if carried to any extent, the ground ultimately produces little  more than food for the rapidly accumulating population to be fed out of it. When subdivided with tenants' sons it encourages improvident and early marriages (already too general), and consequently a fall in the condition of the farmer; and, when sublet for the sake of income to cottiers, a most exacting rent is enforced with rigorous punctuality in the shape of money and labour utterly disproportioned to the value received, and leading the farmer rather to depend upon this income than upon his own industry, and is therefore a great discouragement to agricultural improvement.
   "I conceive the evil at this moment is, that if a man comes into a farm held under me, he subdivides it, and before I can take any proceedings against him, the evil has grown up, and I should have to increase the evil by driving the man out." Dig. Dev. Com. p. 428.

   Evidence of H. L. Prentice, Esq. Agent to Lord Caledon.

   (Armagh and Tyrone.)

   "Has subdividing or subletting been carried on to any extent in other districts?—Yes, to an alarming extent.
   "How minutely have you known farms to be subdivided?—I have known ten families on a farm of six Irish acres.
   "Was that a case where land was held under a determinable lease or at will?—There was a lease of it.
   "Do you find that a man holding by lease even in perpetuity disposes him to divide?—Yes, it does."—Ibid. p. 428.

   Evidence of James Johnson, Esq., Land Proprietor.

   "It is not carried to a great extent in Donegal, but it does exist, I am sorry to say; and although every means are taken by both proprietors and agents to prevent it, they find it almost impossible to put a stop to it.
   "Do you find that subdividing farms takes place to a greater extent on those estates than where the proprietor is resident?—Yes, it must do so; and even with a resident proprietor it is very difficult to prevent a father giving his children portions of his farm"—Dig. Devon Com. p. 429.

   Evidence of Mr. John M'Carten, Linen Manufacturer and Agent.

   "Has subletting been carried on to any great extent in your neighbourhood?—I may say it has, though the landlords are every day watching it, and do all they can without quarrelling with the people: there is a great desire for it on the part of the tenants.

   "Have you ever known any legal measures taken by landlords to stop it or counteract it?—I am not aware that any legal steps have been taken, under a lease, to enforce the covenants against the tenant for subletting; but on some estates, leases are refused in consequence of it and in order to check it; and I have known other cases where a reduction of rent, actually contemplated, was refused to the tenant because he had subdivided the land contrary to the landlord's wishes."—Digest, Dev. Com. p. 432.

   Evidence of J. E. Taylor, Esq., Landholder, Agent and Magistrate.

   "The only reason I can assign for it is, that there are some old leases, and on the old leases and cheap farms there is more subletting than on the recent set farms.

   "Then, in point of fact, those 309 subdivided farms have been held principally under old leases?—Yes; and they are the cheapest, and most unimproved, and the hardest to get the rent from."—Ibid. p. 432.

   Andrew Orr, Esq., Land Proprietor and Farmer.

   "With regard to the subletting and subdividing of farms, to what extent has it been carried out, and what are its effects?—This is a ruinous measure to both landlord and tenant, and almost impossible to prevent. The people are apt to contract early marriages. A farmer's son brings home a wife, and then, after some time, the barn is fitted up for the newly married couple: the farmer then finds he cannot do without the barn, and a new house has to be erected for his son, and then he prevails on his father to give him part of the land. The landlord of course sets his face against the measure; but still the evil proceeds, until all are driven to beggary and ejected. That, so far as I perceive, is what generally happens." Digest, Dev. Com. p. 432.

   Evidence of Richard Mayne, Esq., Agent and Magistrate.

   "Does the subletting or subdividing of farms still continue?—Oh, yes.

   "Is it permitted by the landlords?—They cannot stop it.

   "What means do they take to attempt to stop it?—They cannot take any; they try as well as they can, by turning out the tenant; but if you dispossess a man and his family, it creates such a sensation that people cannot do it; it is impossible to do it."—Ibid. p. 432.

   Evidence of Edward Spoule, Esq., Linen Bleacher and Land Proprietor.

   "Is the subletting or subdividing of farms carried on to any extent?—It is too much so; and it is injurious to the landlord as well as the tenantry themselves; it is destructive to the accumulation of capital, and lowers the farming population, so as to render them subject to greater privations than day labourers. It is done in two ways—one to provide for children marrying, by dividing the tenement, and another to procure some money, by the sale of a portion of the farm, to enable a struggling farmer to clear of a debt. In both cases the evils are permanent and the benefits slight."—Ibid. p. 432.

   Evidence of William C. Collis, Esq., Land Proprietor and Magistrate.

   "Subletting . . . . exists from a mistaken wish to keep the family together, and have the benefit of their labour until they are too old to go to a trade, and have formed such habits  as are only fitted for tilling the land, then the extreme difficulty of getting other farms reduces the parent to the necessity (I will call it) of dividing his farm. . . . Landlords cannot well prevent this, except by most rigid and unpopular means, though they see and understand the evil. And I have here to remark, that this difficulty of obtaining farms arises chiefly from the odium that is attached to a landlord, under any circumstances, for dispossessing a tenant."—Dig. Dev. Com. p. 434.

   John P. Molony, Esq., Land Proprietor.

   "Does the subletting or subdividing of farms still continue?—Yes, indeed it does.
   "Is it permitted by the landlords?—Not where they can prevent it; but it is generally done without being brought under the eye of the landlord, and sometimes in consequence of a man having a large farm—as his children marry off he gives them a portion of it, If he has eight or ten acres he will give one son four or five, and another three, and in that way." Ibid. p. 434.  Evidence of Thomas Ware, Esq., Land Proprietory Vice-chairman of Board of Guardians, and Magistrate.
   "What steps do they take to prevent it? — They are generally obliged to yield to it, the remedy afforded by law is so difficult of attaining. . . . . At the time that the Subletting Act was in force in this country, my father and I jointly let a small lot of ground to a Roman Catholic clergyman; there was as strong a clause inserted in the lease against subletting as the skill of the legal man could devise. . . . He gave a part of the ground to his brother, and a part to his sister. His sister got a license, and opened a public-house upon the premises. I did not like this getting on. My immediate tenant retained in his own hand one small field, containing probably an acre or an acre and a half of land. I brought an ejectment against him for a breach of covenant in subletting. I had a record in court upon it, and it was with extreme difficulty that I was able to sustain the case, though I proved that the county rate was paid in three separate payments—one by the brother, one by the sister, and a third portion for the small field he kept as a colourable possession in his own hand. I succeeded in getting a verdict, but it was afterwards set aside, and an order for a new trial came down—and all this arising from the impossibility on my part to prove that those lettings had taken place by written agreement. It was set up by him, 'I put in my brother as my steward or caretaker, and lent my sister  the use of the house but finally I succeeded."—Digest, Dev. Com. p. 433.

   Evidence of M. Mahony, Esq.

   "I will give you an instance of it (subdivision):—One portion is called Ballycarberry, forming three ploughlands. The occupying tenants some years ago divided the land into little divisions among themselves. They calculated each division as the grass of four cows. There was one man of the name of Crahan, now living on one of those lots with four cows—he had four in family; he got them all married, and the fortune he gave was a cow's grass to each; and of course, the sons came to reside upon the land. There are four families. The last of all was a daughter. He had but one cow's grass remaining. He married that daughter to my cow boy, and he got the remaining cow's grass, or he was to have one on the father-in-law's death."—Ibid. p. 434.

   Evidence of J. Butler, Esq., Land Proprietor.

   "As soon as a man has a son or daughter grown up, the first thing he does is to give them a bit of land."—Ibid. p. 435.

   Evidence of R. T. Saunders, Esq., Land Proprietor.

   "I have some leases ready, but the tenants will not accept them . . . . With respect to subletting, a tenant-at-will cannot subdivide his farm so easily as a tenant by lease, and such never takes place on a well-regulated estate; but a tenant by lease most frequently subdivides by his last will and testament amongst his children, thereby leaving all not sufficient land to support their families, and in a short time none can pay their rent, consequently the landlord loses his rent and they lose their farms."—Ibid. p. 284.

   Evidence of Captain Thomas Bolton, land agent to Lord Stanley.

   "With respect to the subletting or subdividing of farms, does it still continue?—Yes, it does, very much, and I have much difficulty in checking it. There is more difficulty in that than any thing else. That is my reason for not granting  leases. You have no control over them with a lease. You may put stringent clauses, but presently you find a barn or stable occupied; and you find a field with a tenant, and he says, 'This man is a labourer or a servant of mine.'

   "Have you attempted to enforce any of those clauses?—Yes, several times; and succeeded once on a farm of fourteen acres of ground, at an expense of £220. It was twice referred to the upper courts, and two trials at the assizes. I had enough of it, but I succeeded. The rent was about 22s an acre, upon fourteen acres of ground.

   "Explain in what manner these enormous costs were incurred?—Points were raised by the defendant's lawyer with regard to the proceeding. There was a new trial, and points reserved a second time, and it went up to Dublin a second time. The tenant sold his interest in the farm; he was a drunken blackguard sort of a fellow, and I was aware before it actually took place, that it was intended to be done. I formally told him before a number of persons, that he ought not to do so, and cautioned the purchaser, who gave him ₤150. for his interest in the land; that I should proceed upon the lease, and if he persuaded the other man to dispose of it, I would turn him out. This was openly done, but still the purchaser gave him £150. for his interest in the land. I had to prove the subletting; and there were some difficulties I had to encounter, that I cannot call to mind."—Digest, Dev. Com. p. 436.

   Evidence of Robert O'Brien, Esq., Land Proprietor, Tenant, and Agent.

   "The subletting of land has long been a grievance, and those landlords who first broke through the system of letting their lands to middlemen were at that time hailed as benefactors to their country; but now the rule has become so general, and the class of middlemen so nearly passed away, that the evils of it are nearly forgotten, and the occupiers are now getting up a cry against the landlords as if they were unkind and hard taskmasters, forgetting that in nine cases out of ten  their existence on the land was without the consent of the landlord; that they have much greater indulgences from him than they had while under the middleman; and that they always looked forward with anxiety to be brought into direct communication with their landlord The great value of land during the war, induced many who were of a respectable farming class to sublet the lands and set up to be gentlemen; and one frequently meets with people who say their father had £100, £200, &c., a year out of such and such lands."—Digest, Dev. Com. p. 435.

   W. J. Fennell, Esq., Landholder and Magistrate.

   "Can you give us any instances of that subdivision?—Yes, I can. A tenant of my own held a few years ago thirty-six Irish acres of land himself, under a lease directed to himself, not under the restriction of the Subletting Act. He had a lease for lives prior to that. After a bit he got one of his sons married, and gave him one-third of the farm, and planted him on it. A little after he got a second son married, and planted him on it, and gave him one-third. One of those men not being industrious, and matters going wrong, could not pay his rent for his third, and to relieve himself out of the difficulty he gives half of his third to a fourth party, getting some money for it."—Ibid. p. 410.

   "Were you before this division took place aware of it, and did you try to remonstrate with this person?—I did, and his reply was what else could he do with his sons? And now the stranger is not paying anything, or paying badly, and he looks to me to get the man out for him.

   "Is the lease still in existence?—Yes, there are three lives in existence still. I wish to state another instance about the division of land, and the way they deal with the land. About sixteen years ago a tenant died in this place. He left me executor to his will, and guardian to his two infant daughters. He had but ten acres of land . . . An allowance of 5s an acre had been made for some time, and up to this time.  Still I think he was paying the value. His will was, that on the eldest girl attaining the age of nineteen, she was to get married; and upon her getting married, either to give half the ground to her other sister, or secure her in £50. On her attaining the age of nineteen, in one month afterwards she did get married, and her husband passed notes for the £50 to the other girl, instead of dividing the land, which £50 must still go out of my land, or I must have another tenant on it; I could instance hundreds of cases of that kind . . . . I may notice one more particularly—a case of that kind. Another man died, leaving two sons. He had only nine acres of land. He divided this ground between them by will. One was married. The unmarried man he bound in his will to give £30 to his sister on marriage, having only four acres and a half of land. He did secure her in it, and has been three years in paying it. He has discharged it, but I believe he is beggared by it. He is pauperised. He had to sell his only cow and mule he had for the use of his farm, to provide the £30 for his sister." Digest, Dev. Com. p. 441.

   Francis E. Curry, Esq., Agent to the Duke of Devonshire.

   "Does the subletting or subdivision of farms still continue?—It is a thing I endeavour to check by every means in my power. There is scarcely any subletting except under old leases unexpired, where it cannot be prevented; but the subdivision of land is more difficult to prevent, and it is done sometimes contrary to covenant and the known rules of the estate; but I endeavour to check it as much as possible by timely cautioning and watchfulness more than by any other means. In some instances I have been obliged to have recourse to stronger measures. I think there is a greater tendency to subdivide among the smaller tenants than the large ones.

   "What measures have you taken to prevent the subletting or subdivision?—In some instances where I have found subdivision to exist, and being unable to check it otherwise, I have been obliged to give the parties notice to quit . . . . In a few  cases ejectments have been brought on account of it. I endeavour to prevent it as much by watchfulness as anything else. It is not practised to any great extent; the parties I have the most difficulty in watching are the small holders." Dig. Dev. Com. p. 442.

   Evidence of Thomas Butler, Esq., Agent and Farmer.

   "Does the subletting or subdividing still continue?—Whenever the tenants are allowed they will subdivide to a quarter of an acre a piece.
   

   "Upon the property which you manage is that permitted?−They are bound by leases not to subdivide, but they will do it in spite of you."—Ibid. p. 443.

   Evidence of John D. Balfe, Esq., Farmer.

   "The tenant having a lease, the covenants of which can only be broken by the fact of subletting, do you see any practical difficulty in the landlord preventing it?—I think, as the law is at present, it is difficult, but it might be remedied." Ibid, p. 443.

   Evidence of Edward Elliot, Esq., Land Proprietor.

   "The people would, I have no doubt, be most anxious still to divide; they would divide down to a rood at this moment if their families required it."—Ibid. p. 443.

   Evidence of Thomas Barnes, Esq., Landholder, Agent, and Magistrate.

   "To what extent is the subletting or subdividing of farms carried on?—It is not carried on to any extent; the landlords are doing all they can to prevent it: they seem to be doing every thing they can, and nothing is more troublesome.
   

   "What means do you resort to to prevent it?—We insert strong covenants against it, and we threaten legal proceedings; but we have never taken any."—Ibid. p. 413.

   Evidence of John Nunn, Esq., Land Proprietor.

   "Is there any covenant about subletting or subdividing?—I have known even in old leases a clause to that effect put  in, but I believe it never availed, because the courts of law allowed what they termed waivers in such matters. If a landlord received rent after he know the subletting had taken place, it was admitted as a waiver; and I believe for that very reason the landlords gave up inserting the clauses." Dig. Dev. Com, p. 444.

   Evidence of Robert D'Arcy, Esq., Farmer and Agent.

   "The middlemen, we found, destroyed every thing they had to do with. They were not satisfied with the profit from farming, but they covered the land with poor tenants; and it is easy to explain to any one acquainted with the country the desire they have to subdivide. Every man who has twenty acres of land, if he has a good house, and a barn, and a cow-house and stable, the first thing he does is to put his son into the barn. The son says, 'I am not satisfied to live in that manner with you, and I will put up a chimney in the stable;' and they never stop till they cover the little farm, that was once a comfortable thing, and bring the greatest possible misery upon themselves. It is to get rid of those that we ship those people to America.
   

   "Does the subletting or subdivision of farms still continue?—Very much; where a poor man can do it he will do it, particularly with their own families. When a family grows up they become a little unpleasant, and wish to settle themselves—the daughter must have her part, and the son must have his part.

   "Is it permitted by the landlords?—No.

   "What course do they adopt to prevent it?—Where there is a clause against subletting they proceed according to that clause to put them out, but latterly there has been some change in the Act in respect to that; that unless the penalty was set forth, and recited in the body of the lease, you could not enforce it. I think nothing would prevent it but a clause making it an avoidance of the lease."—Ibid. p. 444.

   Evidence of John Duke, Esq., M.D., Leitrim.

   "It is a common practice, where a man has five acres he will subdivide it with three sons."—Dig. Dev. Com. p. 445.
    Hon. W. Le Poer Trench.
   "I do not see the means of preventing this subletting . . . Subdivisions of farms by tenants, for the purpose of alienation, are always ruinous."—Dig. Dev. Com. p. 286.

   Evidence of Charles King O'Hara, Esq., Land Proprietor and Chairman of Board of Guardians.

   "Is subletting carried out to any great extent?−It is in general practice when not prevented by the landlord: . . . . it is practised against the consent of the landlord, who endeavours to prevent it by enforcing the penal clauses of the lease, or ousting the tenant, if at will. It is injurious to the interest of all parties, for it lessens capital, increases population, and impoverishes the land."—Dig. Dev. Com. p. 447.
8.  

   Charles King O'Hara, Landed Proprietor and Chairman of Board of Guardians.

   "When a tenant has proved himself to be industrious and  trustworthy, and has acquired capital, the landlord is by no means averse to place under his management improveable land, with a promise of a lease when improved; reserving to himself a controlling power over the subletting and management of the sub-tenants. Such middlemen are necessary, and, under proper control, become salutary links in the chain connecting the lord of the soil with the humblest occupier thereof; they co-operate with the landlord in maintaining peace and good order, being equally interested therein, and become a check to general combination, so likely to prevail where the landlord, unsupported, has to contend singly with one uniform mass of small tenants combined for a common object and interest: they afford a support and protection to the landlord, of which, latterly, he stands much in need. I do not think that you can act upon any one decided principle; you must bring all into practice. You will find some middlemen very well intentioned, and improving, and valuable members of society; and on the other hand they may be otherwise."—Dig. Devon Com. p. 447.
9. "It appears that as one means of abolishing the class of middlemen, proprietors in many cases on the expiration of a lease, set the land to the occupying tenants, letting to the middleman that part only of the farm which he retained in his own hands. And to avoid the operation of this system many middlemen have sought to remove the competitors for a renewal, and have ejected all their sub-tenants previous to the lapse of their own interest. This has not infrequently caused much suffering and outrage."—Ibid. p. 1029.
10. "It does not appear either, as a general rule, from the evidence, that those tenants who have the longest leases, and the most beneficial interest in their farms, have brought the lands they hold to a more productive or improved state than others, not possessing such advantages or security. It is even broadly asserted by many that lands held under long leases, at nominal rents, are in a worse state than those held from year to year."—Digest Devon Commission, Summary, p. 16.
11. "It may be assumed that the fourth class houses are generally unfit for human habitations; and yet it would appear that in the best circumstanced county in this respect (Down) 24.7 per cent., or about one-fourth, of the population live in houses of this class."—Ibid. p. 126.
12.  

    Evidence of John Quin, Esq., Land Proprietor.

    "What, in your opinion, is the length of lease which is most calculated to encourage agricultural improvements? — The better the lease the better the improvements. At the same time I do not think that those who have long leases, and pay nominal rents, exert themselves in a way beneficial to the country or to themselves."—Ibid. p. 284.
13.  

    Evidence of Chas. King O'Hara, Land Proprietor.

    "In this district, long leases have proved injurious to the condition of the tenants and improvement of the land. The tenant having secured a long term, procrastinates, gets into lazy habits, neglects his business, alienates portions of his farm, to meet his rent or engagements, or provide for his family; goes on con-acring and impoverishing until his land is exhausted and himself a pauper, or his land is covered with paupers—himself the greatest. Four marked cases now present themselves on my property, in proof of the bad effect of long leases. First by the termination of a lease made in 1773, to one tenant, of eighty acres, at 9s per acre; the original tenant sold his interest to the present occupier, who is in the worse condition, and no improvement whatever is made; the land is con-acred to exhaustion, and three sub-tenants on it. I know this myself. The second is a farm, leased in the year 1772 to one tenant (by whose death it terminated), of seventy-eight acres, at 5s per acre. The tenant had only sixteen acres in his possession at his death, having sublet the remainder. I believe there about fifteen families on it. The third case is 368 acres, leased in 1784 to one tenant, of excellent land in the best condition at 10s. per acre for 256 acres of upland, with 112 acres of bottom and bog not charged for. The farm is now occupied by the four sons of the lessee, holding in common; they have no division, and all the buildings, walls, fences, and drains are decayed or destroyed, and land lying unfenced and exhausted, covered with weeds; and I will venture to say, that if now surveyed, I shall not be able to find the number of acres of upland that was leased to them. They have let some of the lower part go back to bog. The term of the original lease was for three lives. The fourth case is 208 acres, leased in the year 1784 to one tenant, at 5s per acre: the lessee apportioned it among his three sons; they among six; and it now has twenty-four families on it. Each of these farms should have made the fortune of the tenant, had he been possessed of common industry. I could state several similar  instances; but these have occurred within the last few weeks. There was one case of a farm, about the same size, leased by my father to one tenant. The lease lasted for many years. I found the son on it with thirty tenants, and himself the poorest man of the whole. The tenants admitted that they had been in the habit of contributing to his support. That was from drink."—Dig. Dev. Com. p. 286.

    Evidence of Thomas Bradford, Farmer.

    "What lease should a person have to remunerate him for that draining?—He should have a lease for sixty-one years at least.

    "Taking, generally, large and small farms, do you see much greater improvements where there are leases than where there are tenants-at-will?—I cannot say that I do. I know a farm which is upon lease for 999 years, and there is not such a badly managed estate round the country.

    "Are the lessees of that farm under that long lease subletting?—Yes, they are subletting every day.

    "Are they holding any land themselves?—Yes, but they are the most wretched people I see. Upon the townland which I have spoken of, there are many families, who are neighbours of those parties, who are paying £3 or £4 an acre for their land, and they are much more snug and comfortable, and that is their character throughout the neighbourhood.

    "Have those neighbours any leases who are paying £3. or £4. an acre?—Some of them have, and some of them have not."—Ibid. p. 279.

    Evidence of Lieut. Col. Wm. Blacker, Land Proprietor.

    "I passed one farm that I happened to know something of, which I know is held for ever at 3d. an acre, and it is in a worse condition than farms adjoining, held by an ordinary lease, at 25s. or 26s.

    "Is it in possession of the lessee, or is it sublet?—It is, I believe, in the possession of the lessee, but I am not quite certain."—Ibid, p. 260.
     

    Evidence of Richard Longfield, Esq. Land Proprietor.

    "How is it principally let—on lease or at will?—Generally on lease; but I think there is a degree of objection now and dislike to letting on lease that formerly did not exist. Many of the farms let on very old leases are in a very bad state."—Dig. Dev. Com. p. 274.

    "Have you, in point of fact, observed that those who have very long leases among the farmers are not the most improving?—Decidedly. Nor do I believe it to be to the advantage of the landlord or tenant that the land should be at a very low rent."—Ibid. p. 275.

    Evidence of Rondly Miller, Esq., Agent.

    "On the estate let in perpetuity in this neighbourhood, the tenants generally are the poorest in this barony, and have subdivided their farms to a great extent, and cultivate them very badly.

    "In that case you mean where the tenant occupies himself the land he holds in perpetuity?—The tenant of lands in perpetuity pays 2s. 6d. the Irish acre; he subdivides the lands away, and holds a small portion himself, it may be in a farm of fifty acres, he may have eight or ten tenants, he keeps a small portion himself, just as much as will give him a vote in the county.

    "What is their condition?—They are very poor, generally."—p. 267.
14.  

    Lord George Hill (Donegal).

    "The good-will or tenant-right of a farm is generally very high, often amounting to forty or fifty years purchase, land being the thing most coveted, as indeed, it has been the only means of subsistence, employment being uncertain, and as till of late no support being provided for the poor and helpless every penny was carefully put by with a view of purchasing land. This took all their little capital, and very often left them in debt to some money lender, who had made up the required sum at an enormous rate of interest; by this means nothing was left them for the purchase of the cattle and seed."—Digest, Devon Commission, p. 299.
15. The following remarks on the unrestricted sale of what is called the good-will as distinguished from fair compensation for improvements is well worthy of attention.

    "It is even questionable whether this growing practice of tenant-right, which would at the first view appear to be a valuable assumption on the part of the tenant, be so in reality; as it gives to him, without any exertion on his own part, an apparent property or security, by means of which he is enabled to incur future incumbrance in order to avoid present inconvenience—a practice which frequently terminates in the utter destitution of his family and in the sale of his farm, when the debts thus created at usurious interest amount to what its sale would produce."—Ibid. p. 5, 24.

    "The effect on the purchaser of the tenant right to a farm is also highly injurious. He is generally a person who has managed to accumulate a small portion of funds, but not sufficient to pay off the whole amount of the purchase-  money. He, therefore, is obliged not only to part with the whole of that capital which would be requisite to establish him in his new enterprise, but he must, at the very commencement' encumber himself with a debt which requires a considerable time to liquidate.

    "The equitable and legal rights of a proprietor in his land, as well as the equitable rights of a tenant to a fair return for his judiciously-invested labour and capital, are alike outraged by the existing practice in Ireland." Digest of Evidence, Devon Commission, p. 5.

    Evidence of Thos. Eyre, Esq. Farmer and Miller.

    "What do you think of the effect of the tenant-right generally?—I always thought it injurious; but am not competent to judge, perhaps. I had been always living in England till 1826. I always thought it an injury to the tenant, rather than a benefit.

    "In what manner do you consider it injurious to the tenant?—The incoming tenant impoverishes himself by purchasing this land, he has to go and borrow money to buy the land, in the first instance; and after he gets it, he gets credit where he should not do it at home. The shopkeepers say, "Oh, he has a farm, and we may trust him."—Ibid. p. 306.
16.  Here is a case where the lender actually becomes the Landholder.

    Evidence of R. W. Codd, Roman Catholic Clergyman.

    "By whom is the stamp and interest paid?—By the tenant.

    "Do you know the usual rate of interest?—I have been inquiring, and I have been told it is not less than twelve per cent., generally speaking; sometimes this money costs them 10 per cent., when they give them the land in pledge. The use of the land is granted as the interest for the money borrowed" Ibid. p. 208.  

    Evidence of John Forsyth, Esq., Agent.

    "Supposing a man obliged to borrow money to purchase the tenant-right, and having to pay interest, and finding a difficulty in paying the interest and the rent, which is he most likely to complain of, the interest or the rent?—We do not hear much about the interest; but they frequently pay the interest where they do not pay the rent. I think they get the money very frequently from people in their own rank, who are associating with them."—Dig. Dev. Com. p. 292.

    "That a portion of the borrower's farm is occasionally transferred to the lender as a security for the repayment of the debt, and that the use of the land is received instead of interest."—Ibid. Summary, p. 195.

    "That the interest paid by the needy man to local usurers frequently ranges from "25 to 100 per cent."—Ibid. Sum. p. 195.

    Charles A. Walker, Esq., Land Proprietor and Deputy Lieutenant.

    "In the poorer parts of the country there are unfortunately some of those curses to society, usurers, who charge exorbitant interest to the distressed tenants, and have been the means of more injury to farmers and estates than any other cause.

    "The usual way in which the interest is paid by the borrower is, he gives up to the lender the best field on his farm for three years or more, for the usurer to repay himself by the produce of it. The usurer takes wheat crop after wheat crop until the land can produce no more. The next loan is repaid in a similar manner with another field, and both tenant and land are ruined. I know miles in extent in this district which have been so treated."—Ibid. p. 207.

17. The Church Temporalities and Landlord and Tenant Questions.—Drogheda, March 11th.—"At a very full meeting of the Drogheda Board of Guardians—Patrick Matthew, Esq., J. P., in the chair—the following resolutions, in connexion with the above questions, were unanimously adopted:—"That we petition the Legislature to pass such a law of landlord and tenant as will give a fixity of tenure of from 61 to 100 years, according to the relative number of reclaimed acres of land in each holding, fixing rents by adding one-fourth or one-third to the present Poor Law valuation, making that sum the rent. No compensation save for permanent improvements made within fifteen years prior to the expiration of term; also, giving a right to tenant or occupier to sell the good-will of the holding, if anything should occur to oblige him to take such a course." Northern Whig.
18.  "Or, if the parents' improvidence do not reach to this extent, it gives them an erroneous feeling that at their death a fund will exist, without any previous accumulation of their own, from which their children can be all provided for. Accordingly, the death of a father generally leaves the son who succeeds to the farm encumbered to an irretrievable extent by charges for the provision of other members of the family; and this frequently upon a holding in a most unproductive or half-cultivated condition. He is obliged to sell off his stock, and is utterly unable to make those exertions which his position requires, and perhaps even incapable of fulfilling the arrangements required by his father's will. A minute subdivision of the small farm is then made amongst the members of the family, thereby laying the foundation for perhaps five or six pauper families on an extent of surface barely sufficient for the comfortable maintenance of one family."
    Dig. Dev. Com. Summary p. 4.
19.  

    Evidence of Robert Smith, Esq. Clerk of the Peace.

    "In my opinion, such is the anxiety of the majority of the lower class of farmers, in the districts wherein I am best acquainted, that they would purchase the outgoing tenant's interest, disregarding all covenants." Dig. Dev. Com. Summary, p. 295.

    Evidence of John Hancock, Esq., Agent.

    "The number of competitors have a still greater effect. The demand, in general, regulates the price."—Ibid. p. 295.

    Evidence of John Andrews, Farmer and Agent.

    "I think land, being sold at a high price by the outgoing tenant, takes away capital that ought to be left with the incoming tenant, for there is such eagerness to get land, that a man will give all he has got in the land, and leave himself without capital."—Ibid. p. 295.

20.  

    Evidence of Mr. John Wilkin, Farmer.

    "With regard to the purchase of land, I may say, generally, that so much is not given for the land now; but where there is an anxiety to provide a place for a man's family to set down upon, in many cases the money is borrowed, and not repaid till it is sold again, so that it is a fictitious value."—Ibid. p. 305.

    Evidence of Mr. Robert Macrea, Farmer.

    "In the case of a farm that has been improved by the tenant, does it sell proportionably higher than one that has not been improved?—No, I do not think it does; and I think small farms sell higher infinitely than many large ones." Dig. Dev. Com. Summary, p. 308.

21.  

    Evidence of Mr. Alex. Kinmouth, Farmer.

    "Is the value of it (goodwill) increasing or decreasing? Increasing on our estate.
    "How do you account for that increase?—They have found out that Colonel Close is a good landlord."—Ibid. p. 294

    Evidence of Henry Leslie Prentice, Esq., Agent to Lord Caledon.

    "They would go unknown to me or to any agent, and give an additional sum to get what is called 'the good-will' of it.
    "Generally speaking, over the country, what is the amount of the sale of the tenant-right per acre by the year's rent?—It depends very much upon the landlord under whom the farm may be held. If he is a good landlord, and a man of character in the country, the price will be higher; if he is an inferior landlord, the price will be comparatively low."—Ibid. p. 171.
22. This I believe is generally admitted, though there are flagrant exceptions; even a rent that is absolutely low, may be beyond the means of an indigent or unskilful tenant.
23.  "It is, in the great majority of cases, not a reimbursement for outlay incurred, or improvements effected on the land, but a mere life insurance or purchase of immunity from outrage. Hence, the practice is more accurately and significantly termed, 'selling the good-will.'

    "And it is not uncommon for a tenant without a lease to sell the bare privilege of occupancy or possession of his farm without any visible sign of improvement having been made by him, at from ten to sixteen, up to twenty and even forty years' purchase of the rent."

    Evidence of John Andrews, Esq., Farmer and Agent.

    "The tenant-right is more valuable than any compensation for improvement could be, though we have not many sales of farms, except by ill-doing tenants, who work the land till they have nearly exhausted it, and then sell it, and get a good deal of money upon it; and I have seen parties get a good deal of money by such sales who would be fairly liable to an action for dilapidations."

24. The subject is resumed in the following conclusions in the Summary of the Evidence given before the Devon Commission:
    "That small holdings, in consequence of the greater competition, command a higher price than large.

    "That the tenant-right confuses the rights of landlord and tenant, and is an undue interference with the interest of the proprietor.

    "That the amount paid for the purchase of tenant-right injures the incoming tenant, by diminishing his capital.

    "That debts are contracted upon the security of the tenant-right.

    "That the children of farmers are provided for by charges upon the tenant-right.

    "That the incoming tenant is frequently compelled to borrow funds for the purchase of the tenant-right at usurious interest.

    "That the existence of the tenant-right renders more difficult reclamation of waste lands by capitalists.

    "That in most parts of Ireland the practice exists of selling the possession of farms held even from year to year.

    "That the price of tenant-right frequently amounts to £10, £12, £20, or £25 per acre, and that sometimes as much as forty years' purchase of the rent is paid for it.

    "That many proprietors have attempted to regulate and restrict its price.

    "That such restrictions are frequently evaded.

    "That the tenant is able to obtain a high rate of purchase for his good-will where he has effected no improvements, or has even deteriorated his farm.

    "That even if the price of tenant-right be at all affected by the improvements made on a farm (a fact doubted by some witnesses), it is not so influenced in proportion to the value of the improvements."—Dig. Devon Com, p. 290.

25. "It may be observed that if an Irish landlord resist the temptation of a high offer, and lets his land at what he considers a fair rent, he often creates a set of intermediate tenants, who make a profit rent, by subletting the ground to persons who live in the extreme of misery." Sir G. C. Lewis on Irish Disturbances, p. 313.
26.  I wish it to be distinctly understood, that I apply this phrase only to those cases where the price paid by the incoming tenant represents no real value.

    The Rev. John O'Sullivan, P.P.

    "The premiums paid for these holdings to one another is incredible. I have known a man to pay £35 for a plot of land for which he paid only £2.5s a year without any lease. Mr. Hickson has been telling me of a man who gave £15 to another, who held land at a very high rent; a man on the other side of the bridge paid £50 for the grass of three cows . . . . There are only ten years to run of the term, and he has taken it in defiance of Mr. Hickson; . . . but, notwithstanding, he is going to lay out £250 upon it. I hold some land from Lord Lansdowne. He gives me the glebe, and there was a field adjoining the lawn before the house I was anxious to get, but I should not think of getting it without the full consent of the proprietor. I could not drain my lawn without draining his field. I sent to him to know what he would let me have it for. He was under ejectment at the time, and he wanted £20 for it, though it was not worth 5s. I thought I should get it for £3 or £4. I could have got it from Mr. Hickson without paying anything for it; but, of course, I could not think of that."—Digest, Dev. Com. p. 309.

27. See Appendix, p. 147.
28. An amusing instance of the feeling that Ireland was to be sacrificed to England is mentioned by the author of the Commercial Restraints of Ireland, p. 125. In 1698 two petitions were presented to the English House of Commons from the fishermen of Folkstone and Aldborough, stating that they were injured "by the Irish catching herrings at Waterford and Wexford, and sending them to the Straits, and thereby forestalling and ruining petitioners' markets."
29.  In 1836, the Royal Commissioners for inquiring into the Condition of the Poor in Ireland, reported

    "That they could not estimate the number of persons in Ireland out of work and in distress during the thirty weeks of the year at less than 585,000, nor the persons dependent on them at less than 1,800,000, making 2,385,000."

    "The estimate of these Commissioners received a singular but sad corroboration nine years afterwards, in the fact I have already noticed, of 3,000,000 of persons being in receipt of rations under the relief arrangements at one period during the height of the famine in 1847. It receives a further corroboration in the reduction of the population by two millions and a-half by emigration. It was the extraordinary productiveness of the potato before 1846, which enabled those 2,385,000 persons to exist, with only half work, even in the wretched condition they did."—Dr. Hancock's Alleged Decline, &c.

30. A. Young, enumerating the causes favourable to the growth of population in Ireland, says:—"Marriage is certainly more general in Ireland than in England: I scarce ever found an unmarried farmer or cottar; but it is seen more in other classes which, with us, do not marry at all; such as servants; the generality of footmen and maids in gentlemen's families are married, a circumstance we very rarely see in England. Another point of importance is their children not being burdensome. In all the inquiries I made into the state of the poor, I found their happiness and ease generally relative to the number of their children, and nothing considered as such a misfortune as having none."—Part ii. p. 6l.
31.  The following Table, quoted by Mr. Mill, sufficiently illustrates the rapid rate of increase of population which at one time prevailed in Ireland:—

    	per cent.		per cent.
    Ireland . . .	2·45	Bavaria . . .	1·08
    Hungary . . .	2·40	Netherlands .	0·94
    Spain . . . .	1·66	Naples . . .	0·83
    England . . .	1·65	France . . .	0·63
    Rhenish Prussia .	1·33	Sweden . . .	0·58
    Austria . . .	1·30	Lombardy . . .	0·45

    Mill's Polit. Econ. Vol. I., p. 360.

32.  Mr. Thornton, in his Plea for a peasant proprietory, quotes the following passage from McCulloch, and, I think, every one acquainted with Ireland will acknowledge the truth of Mr. McCulloch's observations:—

    "The strong predilection entertained by the great bulk of the children engaged in agriculture for the pursuits of their fathers has been remarked by every one in any degree familiar with rural affairs. Children at liberty to divide their father's estate, possess the greatest facilities for gratifying their natural inclination. They have the power of continuing in the line of life in which they have been educated, and which must in consequence be endeared to them by all those early associations which exert so strong an influence over future conduct. Moreover, the possession of a piece of ground gives a feeling of independence to a small capitalist or a poor man, that he cannot otherwise experience." A possession of this sort may fail to render him comfortable, "but it gives him a security against want; it furnishes him with a cottage, and unless it be unusually small it will enable him to raise such a supply of potatoes as will go far to support himself and his family. In no way, therefore, can a poor man be so independent. The possession of a piece of ground renders him in some measure his own master. It exempts him from the necessity of severe labour and unremitting application" From these considerations Mr. McCulloch concludes that the children of small landowners will choose "to reside on the little properties they have obtained from their ancestors, and that the process of division and subdivision will continue until the whole land has been parcelled out into patches, and filled with an agricultural population equally destitute of the means and the desire of rising in the world."—McCulloch's Edition of the Wealth of Nations, Vol. iv pp. 462.

    "This reasoning," observes Mr. Thornton, "must be acknowledged to possess great force." It is an exact description of what has actually occurred.

33. Wade's Chronology, Vol. I. p. 539.
34. "The injury we endured by the suppression of our trade may be best measured by the expansion which immediately followed its liberation. In 1780 the duties on the exportation of woollen manufactures from Ireland were removed. In three years the export of our woollen stuffs increased from 8000 yards to 53S,000 yards of old draperies, from 494 yards to 40,000 yards, of new draperies. Again, with regard to the cotton manufacture; in 1783 130,000 yards of cotton goods were imported into Ireland within six months from Chester alone. In 1784, after the removal of the prohibition, only 18,000 yards were exported from that port during the same period."
35.  Extract from a letter from a Belfast Merchant.
    "I think you may fairly assume that the present rate of wages earned by mill workers is about 50 per cent in excess of that paid to them thirty or forty years since. Mechanics  and artizans are receiving from 50 to 70 per cent. more wages than were paid twenty to thirty years since. I am paying my permanent farm labourers 11s per week when I do not provide them with a home. I should say that day labourers in Belfast, such as porters in warehouses, may be all put down as receiving fully 50 per cent in excess of what they used to get."
    "The enclosed statement, which Mr. Henderson has furnished at my request, shews pretty clearly the progressive advance of wages paid to the last-named class.
    "The following is a statement of the rates of wages which appear to have been paid by us to ordinary labourers at the periods undernoted. We give separately the wages paid to men hired by the week, and to men hired by the day. The wages paid to carters and head porters was somewhat higher.

    	By the Week.	By the Day.
    1828 . .	8/" . .	1/6 to 1/8
    1832 . .	8/" to 9/" . .	1/6 to 1/8
    1840 . .	9/" . .	1/8
    1847 . .	9/" to 10/" . . .	1/8 to 2/"

    This was the famine year, and wages fluctuated more than usual.

    1857 . .	10/" ....	2/"
    1867 . .	12/" .	2/6

    It will be seen that the rise in 40 years is about 50 per cent."

    Belfast, 10th July, 1867

    I have given in an Appendix a few facts connected with the improvement which has taken place in Belfast and its neighbourhood during the last 30 or 40 years.—See Appendix, p. 149

36.  It is a great satisfaction to me to find that the following observations by Mr. Cobden which have been published since the foregoing chapter was written, bear out the view of the subject I have taken.
    "But whatever were the causes of early degradation of Ireland, there can be no doubt that England has, during the last two centuries, by discouraging the commerce of Ireland, — thus striking at the very root of civilization—rendered herself responsible for much of the barbarisms that afflicts it.
    "However much the conduct of England towards the sister-island, in this particular, may have been dwelt upon for party-purposes, it is so bad as scarcely to admit of exaggeration.
    "The first restrictions put upon the Irish trade were in the reign of Charles II.; and from that time, down to the era when the united volunteers of Ireland stepped forward to rescue  their country from its oppressors, (the only incident, by the way, in the Chronicles of Ireland, deserving the name of a really national effort) our policy was directed, incessantly to the destruction of the foreign trade with that country. Every attempt at manufacturing industry, with one exception, was likewise mercilessly nipped in the bud. Her natural capabilities might, for example, have led the people to the making of glass: it was enacted, that no glass should be allowed to be exported from Ireland, and its importation, except from England, was also prohibited. Her soil calculated for the pasturing of sheep would have yielded wool equal to the best English qualities; an absolute prohibition was laid on its exportation; and King William, in addressing the British Parliament, declared 'that he would do everything in his power to discourage the woollen manufactures of Ireland.' Down to the year 1779 we find that the export of woollen goods from that island remained wholly interdicted.
    "Not only was her commerce with the different parts of Europe fettered by the imposition of restrictions upon every valuable product that could interfere with the prosperity of England; not only was all trade with Asia and the East of Europe excluded by the charters which were granted to the companies of London; but her ports were actually scaled against the trade of the American Colonies.
    "Although Ireland presented to the ships of North America the nearest and noblest havens in Europe, and appeared to be the natural landing-place for the products of the New World, her people were deprived of all benefit,—nay, they were actually made to suffer loss and inconvenience from their favoured position; laws were passed prohibiting the importation of American commodities into Ireland, without first landing them in some part of England and Wales, whilst the exports of Irish products to the Colonies excepting through some British port was also interdicted.
    "If we add to this that a law was enacted, preventing beef or live cattle from being exported to England, some idea may be formed of the commercial policy of this country towards Ireland,—a policy savouring more of the mean and sordid tyranny of the individual huckster over his poorer rival, than of any  nobler oppression that is wont to characterize the acts of victorious nations."****
    "There are those who think the Irish genius is unsuited to that eager and persevering pursuit of business which distinguishes the English people; and they argue that, but for this, the natives of a region in all respects so favourable to commerce must have triumphed over the obstacles that clogged their industry."
    "There is, we believe, one cause existing less connected with the injustice of England, and to which we are about to allude why Ireland is below us and other Protestant nations in the scale of cizilization; yet if we look to the prosperity of her staple manufacture, the only industry that was tolerated by the Government of this country,—it warrants the presumption that, under similar favouring circumstances, her woollens, or indeed her cottons might equally with her linens, have survived a competition with the fabrics of Great Britain."
    Cobden's Polit. Writings, Vol. I. p. 53.

    "The two great objects for which the patriots contended were, legislative independence and commercial freedom."

    "With regard to the latter object, it was not merely the mistaken or prejudiced policy of a party, but the pure selfishness and jealousy of the English nation, which denied this object to Ireland: it was a mixture of ignorance and selfishness not less prejudicial to British than to Irish prosperity. But I am only now concerned in showing that such was the spirit and disposition of the English towards the Irish people ; and that by its operation these feelings of animosity and alienation were so deeply rooted in the latter country, that no subsequent concessions, no change of policy, however liberal and complete, have been able to extirpate them. In proof of this part of the case I must produce the testimony of Mr. Huskisson. "Recollecting," he says, "that for centuries it has been a settled maxim of public policy, in all great states having dependencies, to make the interests of those dependencies subservient to the interests, or the supposed interests, of the parent state. There is, perhaps, no country where the consequences of persevering in such a system can be so forcibly illustrated as in our own. Tn the first place, let us look at Ireland till the year 1782. The many other causes which contributed to keep that fertile island in a state of misery and depression, I shall pass by on the present

    occasion; but is it not a well-known fact, that, till the year 1780, the agriculture, the internal industry, the manufactures, the commerce, the navigation of Ireland, were all held in the most rigid subserviency to the supposed interests of Great Britain?" In 1778, a partial relaxation of this exculsive system was proposed in the English Parliament: "and what was the reception these proposals met with in the House of Commons, and on the part of the trading and manufacturing interests of the country? The opponents of these limited concessions, enumerating the boons already conferred on Ireland, declared that to grant more would be fatal to the commerce and manufactures of England. . . . Our merchants and manufacturers, our shipowners, our country gentlemen, all took the alarm—all were to be ruined, if we granted the proposed participations to a country almost without debt, and paying the same taxes with ourselves. Resting on these and other grounds, petitions poured in from all quarters. The merchants of Glasgow prayed 'that neither the present nor any future advantage should be granted to Ireland, which might in the least degree operate to the disadvantage of Great Britain.' . . . The language of Manchester was still more decided in reprobating the proposed concession. Liverpool, also, did not hesitate to predict, that by the adoption of the proposals that town and port would be speedily reduced to their original insignificance. In 1779, a more limited concession to Ireland was proposed in the British House of Commons, but this measure was negatived on a division. Towards the close of that year, the events of the war in North America, and the state of things in Ireland, produced a different feeling in tho British Parliament, State necessity, acting under a sense of political danger, yielded without grace, that which good sense and good feeling had before recommended in vain."
    
    Greville's Policy of England towards Ireland.
    At the same time that a wide and impassable line was drawn by the law between the two religions in Ireland, and the one persuasion was made a privileged, the other an inferior class, the whole of Ireland was treated as a province or colony, whose interest was to be sacrificed to those of the mother-country. Hence arose the restrictions on Irish commerce,—on the exportation of corn, cattle, and woollen goods,—avowedly for the benefit of England. A system of government administered in this spirit, and in a country where a people were already in a state of great rudeness and disorder, necessarily led to the degradation and demoralizing of the bulk of the population."
    

    Local Disturbances of Ireland and the Church Questions,
    by Sir G. C. Lewis, p. 47.