Paddy at Home ("Chez Paddy")

by baron de E. Mandat-Grancey

Under these circumstances the management of an estate becomes very complicated, and morally speaking very painful; for the proprietors are continually forced to use harsh measures. For this reason, all the Irish landowners, even those who reside on the estate, confide the management of the property to professionals, who are called “agents.” These agents are very important personages. In our northern departments, we might perhaps find some receveurs who can be compared to them. As a rule they receive 5 per cent. upon all the rents they collect; but all the expenses of collection, &c., fall upon them, and these expenses are very considerable, for their receipts are so great that frequently they have regularly organised offices. One of those to whom I have an introduction receives commissions amounting to 4,000l.; only I am told that his general expenses absorb one half. I must add that the agents form a class whose respectability is publicly acknowledged, even by the Land Leaguers, who are naturally their bitterest enemies. Their duties often force them, particularly during the last few years, to incur the responsibility of measures that appear very harsh; but in spite of this I have constantly noticed that they are far from being as much hated as one would think. Latterly, however, the agents have frequently been fired at, and several have been killed. Nearly all discharge the same duties, from father to son for several generations, and it is most curious that this profession is so well known that young men intended for it commence by an apprenticeship with one of their number, and even pay very heavy sums to obtain this education. One case was cited to me where the young man paid a premium of 120l.

Few of them manage one estate only. Most of them have charge of several of varying importance. For it is a curious thing that landowners who, amongst us, would certainly never afford themselves the luxury of a farm bailiff; people who have not more than 320l. to 400l. a year, have in this country nearly always recourse to an agent; but this is of course explained by the local customs to which we have previously alluded. Most of the estates are entailed. The proprietors are therefore, strictly speaking, only life tenants. The land is transmitted from male to male, in order of primogeniture, and none of the titles can be alienated. This is called the birthright of the elder, which has existed nearly everywhere in Europe, and which, from an economic point of view, is far from having always produced bad results, since agriculture has never flourished so well anywhere as in England, where the inheritance by order of birth has been more strictly applied than anywhere else.

It is very curious that one cause of the misery in Ireland is the result of a custom which has been introduced, and which, if it does not restrict the system of entail in principle, at least renders it singularly onerous. Nearly all the deeds by which the property is entailed give a right to the owner to burden the patrimonial inheritance with annuities payable to the younger members of the family. For instance, a landowner having an entailed property which brings in 4,000l. has the right, should he have five children, to burden this property, with four annuities of 200l. each for the support of the younger ones. When the father dies, the eldest, therefore, only inherits 3,200l. per annum, whilst he still retains all the expenses and risks of managing the estate. If his son exercises the same right, he will only have 2,400l.; and thus, from generation to generation, the property becomes more and more “encumbered,” as they call it here. If one of the family is an economical man, or marries an heiress, he wipes off the mortgages, and the estate regains its nominal value; but if nothing of this kind happens—and unfortunately, in Ireland, it very rarely does happen—the land, which cannot be sold because it is entailed, at last becomes so overburdened that when a bad year comes, or the rents are not paid, the landlord does not even receive enough to pay the annuities or charges, and he is forced to borrow at enormous interest to enable him to meet his own requirements.

It will readily be seen how these customs aggravate the situation. In Ireland there are a number of estates which still pay “head rents” (or annuities) given to the younger members of the family more than two hundred years ago. The money which has been expended upon many estates has been constantly provided by English capitalists. Until within the last few years, these investments were greatly sought after. As long as the rents continued to rise all went well; but now they are diminishing, even where they have not quite disappeared, one can imagine what happens. I dare not say the majority, but I may say that a great number of the Irish landowners are really reduced to insolvency. For instance, here is a case that I can verify, because I have seen the accounts of the estate: Lord X—— has a rent-roll that, five years ago, amounted to 32,000l., but he has been obliged to agree to a diminution of 4,000l. The rent-roll is therefore now reduced to 28,000l. If the rents were paid, which they are not, only 500l. would remain as surplus in the proprietor’s hands.

It is easy to understand the terrible results of this state of things. The property I allude to has been seized by the creditors—English bankers who have never entered the country—and they have appointed an agent on their own account. Can any one reasonably expect that these men, who are not in the receipt of any interest on their money, will agree to fresh reductions?

Unfortunately, if the landlords or their representatives find themselves so placed that it is impossible for them to make the sacrifices necessitated by the situation, it must be acknowledged that on their side the Irish, or, at least, the Land League, often, by their measures, render matters worse. The Irish complain bitterly of absenteeism. The other day, at Rathmines, Sir Thomas Esmonde laid great stress upon the fact that out of rentals amounting to 17,000,000l., more than 6,000,000l. go out of Ireland every year to be spent in England. I quite admit these figures. It is evident that such a drain of capital must be disastrous. But do not the leaders of the Land League often use all their powers to increase it?

Two very striking cases have been mentioned to me. A few years ago a regiment was stationed at Limerick. The officers were all very rich, and spent a great deal of money in the town. One day, I do not know under what circumstances, the regiment openly avowed its anti-Home Rule sympathies. It was immediately boycotted; every tradesman refused to supply, not only the soldiers and officers, but even their families. Feelings became embittered; quarrels were of daily occurrence; and the regiment was recalled to England, and was not replaced—a net loss to the town of 40,000l. a year. Is it just to reproach the English Government for this state of things?

Another example: a very rich Irish officer settled at Bruree, near Limerick, and bought a pack of foxhounds, arranging the hunt on the most liberal scale. He had a hundred or a hundred and fifty hounds, thirty or forty horses, sixty or eighty keepers, grooms and men-servants, indoors and out.

After a few disputes with his tenants, the Land League boycotted him; and the first time the hounds went out they were poisoned. He at once dismissed all his servants, closed his house, and established himself in Northamptonshire. It is calculated that the county now loses 20,000l. or 24,000l. per annum through his departure. He is another “absentee”—but through whose fault?