Law and practice in respect to the occupation of land in Ireland: minutes of evidence: part II

Back to Search Bibliographic Data Print
949 for, Mr. 
Hyde, of Castle Hyde, when the lease expired, only asked the same rent that Ms J Of A Sept., 
father let at for thirty years b ofore, and the rent-charge in addition. 
—; 26. 
Have those lands been let to a middleman, or to the occupying tenants ?—They 
,, , "„" x, are now let to the occupying tenants. 

Mr'Jame8 M Cart1^ 27. 
In the case of a middleman's lease expiring, what is the course pursued as to the occupying tenants ?—I 
have known them, in the case I refer to, let them to thc occupymg tenants, and the middleman went to America. 
Generally speaking, is it the custom to renew to the occupying tenants ?—It 
was the custom formerly to renew to middlemen; but now, I think, invariably, the landlords set to the occupying tenants, and the middleman is thrown out. 
Do the tenants hold in general by lease, or from year to year ?—From 
year to year. 
I do not know of any leases, with the exception of one farm that was given to the occupy¬ ing tenants. 
So reluctant, indeed, are some of the proprietors to grant leases, that they have refused, and still refuse, tho Catholic clergyman of this district the site for a school-house on a barren rock, though 100 acres of it would not be worth a farthing; and I have known landed proprietors absolutely refuse slate to be quarried in the rocks, for the covering of the CathoHc house of worship. 
Has that occurred lately ?—It 
is over ten years since it occurred. 
Are the tenants anxious for leases, generally speaking ?—Very; 
indeed there is no tenant has the spirit to improve his land without it. 
What do you conceive to be the cause of the refusal of leases ?—I 
tMnk myself the cause was the late dispute in elections—tho disputes with the 40s. 
What effect has the holding at wiH upon the improvement of their farms ?—A 
bad effect. 
Those tenants who have leases are more improvmg, and pay their rents bettor, and more vviUingly than others, with some exceptions. 
When they Hve uncler a man whom they conceive a man of honour—and we have some in the country who are not considered so— when they live under a man of honour it makes no difference, they wiH do as much without a lease as with it; for instance, under the gentleman I have mentioned. 
By whom are permanent improvements generaUy effected ; by the landlord, or tenant, or jomtly ?—Improvements, 
if any, are effected by the tenant, and for wMch, generaUy, he has no remuneration. 
Are there any landlords in the district who are in the habit of assisting their tenants in improving then-lands or bmldings ?—I 
think there is a httle exception. 
I know of one gentleman in the country, a landed proprietor, who ordered his tenants to make narrow roads through the mountains, and to work upon them, and he would aHow them for their labour. 
Is there any system of aUowances adopted by any landlord ?—No. 
If a poor man sends hi a memorial, ho may get some aUowance for work done; but it is not systematic to do so. 
Does the sale of the good-wHl of farms prevail in the district ?—It 
is the custom for the entering tenant to give his predecessor a year's rent for the good-wiH, so great is the competition for land in an increasing population. 
It has generally a good effect, but is not sanctioned by the landlords. 
The longer ancl safer the tenure the more is given for the good-vviH. 
Is there any consoHdation of farms in the district ?—No. 
The consoHdation of farms is not carried on to a groat extent in this district. 
The objects are generally to make the rents more secure, and to get rid of the poor rates, to wlii'ch smaU holdings woidd subject the landlords. 
It is generaUy accomphshed by six months' notice to qmt, and from it agrarian outrages generally result. 
Its effects on production are generaHy for the better; on the employment of labour for the worse. 
Does the subletting or subdividing of farms still continue ?—Subletting 
farms is carried on to a great extent, on account of an increashig population, and is attended generaUy with bad consequences. 
It is not permitted by tho landlords, and is generaHy practised contrary to agreement; it is prevented by noticing aU parties to quit. 
The custom is to get rid of them by noticing the whole party. 
Its effects on accumulation and introduction of capital are good, and gives a faciHty to the mcrease of population. 
Do you mean that the effect of subdivision on the introduction of capital is good ?— 
Yes, capital is brought in. 
How does subdivision, in your opmion, introduce capital?—A 
person who holds land and subdivides it, does it when he is not able to pay Ms rent. 
He finds a neighbour who has a sum of money in his pocket, and he says, 

" Give me so much, and you shaH have half the land." 
Does not he sometimes mtroduce a poor family ?—No; 
because he is poor himself, he may, to Hghten Ms own burdens, give half to a man of some capital. 
A man who owes a year's rent, and has no effects to pay it, wHl let half Ms ground to a man that will pay the year's rent he owes; he may find a man that wiH do that. 
Do you refer to a letting for a short period, or permanently ?—For 
a short period. 
I have known tMs bargain made, that a man should give up the lands again when he got the money he had advanced. 
What, in your opinion, is the condition of the farmmg population ?—The 
large farmers are weU off; the smaU tenantry are badly off; and the labourers, having no respon-sibiHty attached to them, are better off than the smaU tenantry. 
They are qmte easy in their minds when they work for their day's hire. 
They get their Httle house and rood of land.