N.U.I. St. Patrick’s College Maynooth

Title: The decline of the big house in Ireland, 1879-1950

By: Terence A.M. Dooley, M.A., H.D.E.

Thesis for the degree of Ph.D. Department of Modern History, St. Patrick’s College," M aynooth

Head of Department: Professor R.V. Comerford

Supervisor of Research: Professor R.V. Comerford

Date: December 1996

In two volumes

VOLUME I Contents

Acknowledgements ...... v

Abbreviations ...... vii

Abbreviated titles ...... viii

Chapter 1: Introduction...... 1

Chapter 2: The big house: Its environs and personnel on the eve of decline i Architectural design ...... 14 ii Interior splendour ...... 20 iii Household staff ...... 27 iv The demesne ...... 31 v Demesne employees ...... 38 vi Demesne farming ...... 41

Chapter 3: Landlords and their families I: Opportunities and careers, 1850-1914 i Marriage patterns ...... 47 ii Education ...... 56 iii Occupations chosen by younger sons ...... 61

Chapter 4: Landlords and their families II: Social lives and leisure pursuits, 1850-1914 i Big house entertainment ...... 67 ii Foxhunting ...... 74 iii Horse racing ...... 80 iv Clubs ...... 86 v Conclusion ...... 95

Chapter 5: Rents, debts and mortgages in mid-Victorian Ireland Introduction ...... 98 i Rent increases in mid-Victorian Ireland ...... 99 ii Mprtgages as an alternative to raising rents ...... 105 iii What caused landlord indebtedness in mid-Victorian Ireland? „109 iv The significance of rental decline from 1879 ...... 121 v 'No capitalist will now lend on Irish estates' ...... 136 Chapter 6: Land acts, land sales and increased taxation, 1881-1950 i Land acts, 1881-1896 ...... 145 ii Land Acts of 1903 and 1909 ...... 155 iii Free State Land Acts 1923-33 ...... 168 iv The shift from landed income to invested income ...... 177 v The rise in taxation ...... 183

Chapter 7: Landlord politics, 1880-1914 i Landlords and national politics in mid-Victorian Ireland ...... 197 ii Landlords and local politics in mid-Victorian Ireland ...... 199 iii The assault on landlord politics at national level in late Victorian Ireland ...... 205 iv The assault on landlord politics at local level in late Victorian Ireland ...... 213 v Landlord apprehensions of Home Rule ...... 222

Chapter 8: The end of landlord representation in Irish politics, 1914-50 Introduction ...... 235 i Landlords and Unionist organisation in Munster, Connaught and Leinster, 1885-1914 ...... 235 ii Landlords and Unionist organisation in the three Ulster counties, 1885-1914 ...... 245 iii World War I and the weakening of Unionist sentiment ...... 253 iv The Irish Convention 1917-18 and partition ...... 257 v After independence: The decline of Unionism in the Free State ...... 264 vi Landlord political representation in the Free State ...... 271

Endnotes, Volume 1 ...... 283

Chapter 9: Landlord intimidation and big house burnings during the war of independence, 1919-21 Introduction ...... 331 i The renewed land war and the breakdown of law and order ...... 332 ii The burning of big houses during the war of independence ...... 349

Chapter 10: Landlord intimidation and big house burnings during the civil war, 1922-23 Introduction ...... 363 i The commandeering of big houses during the truce ...... 364 ii Continued disorder and landlord intimidation ...... 366 iii Landlords’ pleas for help ...... 373 iv The burning of big houses during the civil war ...... 378 Chapter 11: Compensation claims i The aftermath of destruction ...... 390 ii Pre-truce compensation claims ...... 397 iii Damage to Property Compensation Act 1923 ...... 405

Chapter 12: The changing world of the big house, 1880-1950 i Decline in big house expenditure ...... 416 ii Alternative expedients ...... 423 iii The sale and fate of big houses ...... 429 iv The struggle to retain ancestral homes ...... 436 v Fortuitous marriage alliances? ...... 443 vi The thinning of Irish landlord society ...... 447

Chapter 13: Fox hunting, horse racing and clubs, 1880-1950 i The disruption of fox hunting, 1881-1923 ...... 455 ii The significance of disruption ...... 463 iii Landlords and the administration of horse racing, 1880-1950 ...470 iv Club life, 1914-50 ...... 484

Chapter 14: Big house servants, 1880-1950 Introduction ...... 489 i Servant life in the big house ...... 490 ii Remuneration ...... 495 iii Employment opportunity in the big house ...... 501 iv Changes post World War I ...... 514

Chapter 15: Aspects of big house life in Action Introduction ...... 525 i The lure of the big house ...... 526 ii Mythologising the role of dissipative heirs ...... 527 iii World War I and the myth of the lost generation ...... 536 iv The theme o f iso lation ...... 548 v Conclusion ...... 556

Chapter 16: Conclusion ...... 558

Endnotes, Volume II...... 569

Appendix I: An alphabetical list of the 100 houses in the sample ...... 613

Appendix II: Tables ...... 618

Bibliography...... 663

iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The completion of this work owes a great deal to many individuals and staffs of various institutions. Without their help, it would not have been possible. My greatest debt is to Professor R.V. Comerford of St. Patrick's College, Maynooth. I wish to thank him for his erudite comments, the patience he has always shown, and his constant encouragement. I would like also to extend my thanks to all the staff of the Department of Modem History in Maynooth who made my sojourn there such a pleasant one. The staffs of the following institutes were at all times helpful and co­ operative: the National Library (with especial thanks for allowing me access to a number of unsorted estate records which appear in the bibliography), the National Archives, the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, the Public Record Office of London, the libraries of Trinity College, Dublin and St. Patrick's College Maynooth, the University College Dublin Archives Department, the county museums and libraries of Monaghan and Cavan, the Monaghan County Council Offices, the Valuation Office, Dublin and the Registry of Deeds Office, Dublin. I would like to thank Mr. Jim O'Shea of the National Library, Mr. Brian Connolly and Ms Margaret Brogan of Cavan County Library for their help with sources. The Hon. Desmond Guinness shared his great knowledge of the Irish big house with me. To him, I am also grateful. I would like to thank Ms Catherine Heslin who painstakingly finished the typing and formatting of this work. I am also most grateful to Ms Joanne Lahert who typed an earlier draft. I would like also to thank Mr. Gerry Morgan, Fr. Michael Reaume and Ms Nora Hickey for sharing their knowledge of computers with me. I also owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. Jim King and Mr. Patrick McKelvey for their hours of listening, and for their comments which were more enlightening than they may have realised. I would like to thank all the members of my family for their support and encouragement down through the years. To my parents in particular, I owe a debt that cannot be repaid. In their own ways, it was they who first inspired my love of history. They have always been most supportive and encouraging. Finally, I would like to say a very special thank you to my wife, Annette, who has had to live with this project as long as she has had to live with me. I dedicate this work to her in partial repayment for her patience and support.

Terence Dooley Essexford Co. Monaghan ABBREVIATIONS

B.C. papers Irish Boundary Commission papers C.I.C.M.R. County inspector’s confidential monthly report C.O. Colonial Office, Dublin Castle records C.S.O.R.P. Chief secretary for Ireland’s office, registered papers G.H.Q. General head quarters (I.R.A.) I.G.C.M.R. Inspector general’s confidential monthly report I.L.P.U. Irish Loyal and Patriotic Union I.N.H.S.C. Irish National Hunt and Steeplechase committee I.N.V. Irish National Volunteers I.R.A. Irish Republican Army I.U.A. Irish Unionist Alliance M.C.M. Monaghan County Museum M.M.P. St. Patrick’s College, Maynooth, mortgage papers M.P. Member of Parliament N.A. National Archives, Dublin N.L.I. National Library of Ireland, Dublin P.D.A. Protestant Defence Association P.R.O. Public Record Office, London P.R.O.N.I. Public Record Office of Northern Ireland R.C.B. Representative Body of Church of Ireland R.I.C. Royal Irish Constabulary T.D. Teachta Dala (a member of Dail Eireann) T.C.D. Trinity College Dublin U.C.D. University College Dublin U.I.L. United Irish League U.U.C. Ulster Unionist Council U.V.F. Ulster Volunteer Force ABBREVIATED TITLES

Bateman, Great landowners John Bateman, The great landowners o f Great Britain and Ireland (London, 1883) Bence-Jones, Irish country houses Mark Bence-Jones, A guide to Irish country houses (London, 1988 revised edition) Bowen, ‘The big house’ Elizabeth Bowen, ‘The big house’ in Hermione Lee (ed.), The mulberry tree: Writings of Elizabeth Bowen (London, 1986) Buckland, Documentary history Patrick Buckland, Irish Unionism, 1885-1923: A documentary history (Belfast, 1973) Buckland, Irish Unionism I Patrick Buckland, Irish Unionism I: The Anglo-Irish and the new Ireland 1885-1922 (Dublin, 1972) Buckland, Irish Unionism II Patrick Buckland, Irish Unionism II: Ulster Unionism and the origins of Northern Ireland 1886-1922 (Dublin, 1973) Burke’s gentry Burke’s landed gentry of Ireland (1912, 1958 eds) Burke’s peerage Burke’s peerage, baronetage and knightage (London, various editions) Curtis, ‘Encumbered wealth’ L.P. Curtis jun., ‘Encumbered wealth: Landlord indebtedness in post-famine Ireland’ in American Historical Review, 85, 2, (April, 1980) De Burgh, Landowners of Ireland U.H. Hussey de Burgh, The land­ owners of Ireland: An alphabetical list of the owners of estates of 500 acres or £500 valuation and upwards in Ireland (Dublin, 1881) Donnelly, Land and people o f Cork J.S. Donnelly jun., The land and the people of nineteenth-century Cork (London, 1975) Fitzpatrick, Politics and Irish Life David Fitzpatrick, Politics and Irish life 1913-1921: Provincial experience o f war and revolution (Dublin, 1977) Hopkinson, Green against green Michael Hopkinson, Green against green: The Irish Civil War (Dublin, 1988) Hoppen, Elections, politics and society K. Theodore Hoppen, Elections, politics and society in Ireland; 1832- 1885 (Oxford, 1984) I.R.C. Irish Racing Calendar (1870 - ) Jones, Graziers and land reform David Seth Jones, Graziers land reform and political conflict in Ireland (Washington, 1995) Leslie memoirs Unpublished memoirs of Sir Shane Leslie (N.L.I., Leslie papers, Ms 22,885) Mitchell, Revolutionary government Arthur Mitchell, Revolutionary government in Ireland: Dail Eireann 1919-22 (Dublin, 1995) Neale, Seats of noblemen and gentlemen J.P. Neale, Views o f the seats o f noblemen and gentlemen in England, Wales and Scotland and Ireland, vols. i-iii (London, 1820) Pomfret, Struggle fo r land in Ireland John E. Pomfret, The struggle for land in Ireland, 1800-1923 (Princeton, NJ, 1930) Thom‘s directory Thom’s almanac and official directory of the United Kingdom and Ireland (Dublin, 1845- ) Vaughan, Landlords and tenants W.E. Vaughan, Landlords and tenants in mid-Victorian Ireland (Oxford, 1994) Walker, Election results, 1801-1922 Brian M. Walker (ed.), Parliamentary election results in Ireland, 1801-1922 (Dublin, 1978) Chapter 1

Introduction This thesis is a study of Irish big house life from 1879 to 1950. Traditionally the term 'big house' was used in Ireland to refer to the country houses of Irish landlords. It was a term used by historians, and writers of fiction like Elizabeth Bowen who had been bom into landlord families. In more recent years the term 'country house' has come to replace 'big house' possibly because it has fewer political connotations. However, because of the popularity of the latter term during the period under study, big house will be adhered to during the course of this work. The theme of the big house has been popular with fictionists since the publication of Maria Edgeworth's Castle Rackrent in 1801. Today, contemporary writers such as John McGahem and John Banville continue to use the big house as a setting for their works. Until the 1970s, works of an historical nature dealing with the big house were not plentiful. Since then Desmond Guinness, William Ryan, Mark Bence- Jones, Maurice Craig and the Knight of Glin have attempted to recreate in print the former splendour of Irish big houses. Their emphasis has largely been on the architectural structure of the houses, on descriptions of their interiors and of the gardens and parklands which surrounded them. Apart from this aspect, little is actually known about the big house in Ireland or, indeed, the lives of its inhabitants. L.P. Curtis has maintained that 'too many of the recent books on Irish country houses belong on the coffee table rather than on a desk.'1 Desmond Guinness himself agrees and has pointed out that: 'Few attempts have been made to set down the facts about the Irish country house.'2 In an attempt to redress this imbalance this thesis is a study of the big house from 1879 to around 1950 in the twenty-six counties that today form the Irish Republic. It attempts to cover as many aspects of big house life as possible. The big house was not just a family home. It was the power base of Irish landlords who until well into the second half of the nineteenth century were the economic, social and political elite of the country. It could at once be a home, a political gathering place, the economic nerve centre of a large estate, or a social arena capable of facilitating dinner parties, concerts and balls. It had a multitude of rooms, a large dining area, sometimes a concert hall (if not one of the drawing rooms sufficed), and often a ballroom. It doubled as a theatre, a school, and a gathering place for huntsmen and women. Its demesne and parkland provided the facilities for shooting and other outdoor pursuits popular in the late-nineteenth century such as cricket, tennis, croquet and ice- skating on ponds and lakes in the winter. Inside the demesne walls was a hive of industry where gardeners, gamekeepers, farm labourers, masons, carpenters, grooms and a variety of other craftsmen and servants kept house and surroundings functional thereby making the big house a major employment centre in rural Ireland. In its scope this, therefore, is a very wide study that attempts to trace the conditions of big house life over a period of seventy years which were revolutionary in economic, political and social terms. To concentrate on the whole of Ireland would have meant that this work would have lost its focus because of the radically different socio-economic and political conditions of life in the six north-eastern counties during the period under study. Firstly, from an agricultural point of view, the significance of the Ulster custom, which gave tenants the right to sell their holdings when they gave them up, may have been exaggerated in the past, but its existence did tend towards some degree of superior economic conditions amongst the Ulster tenantry. This is not to say that landlords and tenants in Ulster did not have their grievances, but when, for example, political issues such as Home Rule came to the fore in the 1880s, Protestant tenants found they had much more in common with their landlords than had Catholic tenants with theirs in the other three provinces. With the growth of the anti-Home Rule movement, landlords in Ulster assumed a much more prominent and even militant role than did their counterparts further south. One of the main reasons for this was that Unionism in Ulster had the support of a pyramidal structure, whereas in the other three provinces this support came predominantly from the landed class who formed only the tip of the societal pyramid. Southern landlords, therefore, lacked the support structure to establish an equally effective Unionist movement. The Ulster Unionists were consequently able to combat the extension of Dublin rule to the six north-eastern counties. Under the terms of the Government of Ireland Act of 1920 the new state of Northern Ireland was established. Post 1920 the big houses of the six north-eastern counties, thus, came under a different jurisdiction from those of the twenty-six counties under study. Their owners were able to continue active political lives. At national level this was facilitated by the strength of the Unionist party, and at local level by the continuance of petty sessions and offices such as justices of the peace, high sheriff and lieutenant of the county. In the twenty-six counties, such offices were obsolete by the 1920s and landlords had ceased to be politically influential at either national or local level. And so because of the different political, social and economic conditions which existed in the six north-eastern counties, as much before 1920 as afterwards, it is fair to state that the big houses of Northern Ireland and their inhabitants deserve and require a separate treatment. % At the time this study begins there were approximately 1,700 big houses located in the twenty-six counties under study. To record in any detail the history of them all would be impossible primarily because of the lack of adequate source material. Therefore, it was decided to choose a sample of 100 houses. These 100 houses were the primary country seats of individual landlords. This excluded certain houses which appear in Bence-Jones' Guide to Irish country houses (London, 1988 revd. ed) such as Ballyknockane as this was really a hunting lodge used in the nineteenth century by the Ormondes whose primary residence was Kilkenny Castle. The houses were not chosen on the basis of their architectural design, but rather on the basis of the size of the estates owned by the 100 landlords in order that the sample would be representative of all the socio-economic strata of the landed class. In the sample, 22 landlords owned less than 5,000 acres at the beginning of the period under study; 21 owned between 5,001 and 10,000 acres; 22 owned between 10,001 and 20,000 acres; and 35 owned over 20,000 acres (see table 1.1). Between them they owned around 2.2 million acres, approximately 10 per cent of the country's total acreage. Similarly, to make the sample geographically representative, at least two houses were chosen from each of the twenty-six counties. Priority was given to those houses and estates for which primaiy source material survived. The Irish landed class consisted of the peerage, baronets, knights, and the untitled gentry. Wealth and large landed estates tended to go hand in hand with a peerage. By the early 1880s the largest landowner in twenty-three out of the thirty-two counties was a peer.3 Marquis Conyngham owned 157,000 acres in Counties Clare, Donegal and Meath. The duke of Leinster owned 68,000 acres mainly in Kildare. Between them, Lords Lansdowne, Kenmare and Ventry owned 333,600 acres in Kerry. There were, of course, exceptions. Untitled landowners such as Arthur Mac Murrough Kavanagh, Henry Bruen and Thomas Conolly were all large landowners of over 20,000 acres and proprietors of stately mansions. The year 1879 was seen to be the natural starting point as it was in that year, coinciding with agricultural depression and the beginning of the land war, that the economic decline of the big house began. With this came social decline. Simultaneously, the continued rise of the Home Rule movement and the démocratisation of the masses, resulted in the increasing loss of landlord political power from the 1880s. Within seventy years the great days of the big house and landlord culture had all but gone. By 1950, many big houses had disappeared from the Irish landscape, the victims of the economic decline of their owners whose estates had been sold voluntarily as a result of the land acts up to 1909, or compulsorily as a result of the Free State land acts from 1923 to 1933. Others lay derelict or in ruins, having been burned during the revolutionary period 1919-23. This time span from 1879 to 1950 offers the opportunity to explore events and issues central to the decline of the big house which have received little attention from historians in the past. These include the impact of agricultural depression and the land war on rents and mortgage facilities from the 1880s, the effects of World War I, the burning of big houses from 1919 to 1923, and the consequences of the land acts from 1923 to 1933. These later land acts denied landowners the opportunity to hold on to enough land to undertake the type of large scale farming that was necessary to maintain a big house a viable commercial enterprise. This study also traces the political decline of Irish landlords and the changes in their social lifestyle. It shows how this combination of economic, political and social factors ultimately resulted in the decline of the big house. ✓' While this is essentially a study in decline, there must first have been a position of splendour, authority, ascendancy - call it what one will - from which decline took place. Therefore, this work looks firstly at the position of the big houses and the landed families who inhabited them in the years before their position was threatened. Writing back in the early 1980s Samuel Clark and James S. Donnelly jnr in an article entitled 'The unreaped harvest' claimed: Indeed, the landed class has received inadequate treatment from historians for almost any period that one might choose ... there has been very little analysis of landowners as a social group. How much mobility was there into and out of this elite? What were the major divisions within this class? .... What was the relationship between the peerage and their families on the one hand and the plain gentry on the other? Whom did landowners and their children tend to marry? What was the content of their social life? 4 Such questions were kept in mind when considering the social lives of landlords and their families before decline set in.

6 In this respect, the most scholarly work to date has been L.P. Curtis' 'The Anglo-Irish predicament' published in Twentieth century studies in 1970.5 Peter Somerville-Large's recent work The Irish country house: A social history (London, 1995),6 and Mark Bence-Jones' The twilight of the ascendancy (London, 1987)7 have both made interesting contributions to this area. It was, in fact, Mark Bence-Jones's tremendous efforts to catalogue the big houses of Ireland in his A guide to Irish country houses8 which first inspired the idea to undertake this study. It proved invaluable as a reference for information on dates of construction and architectural design of the houses used in the sample. Desmond Guinness and William Ryan's Irish houses and castles (London, 1971), and Maurice Craig's comprehensive The architecture o f Ireland from the earliest times to 1880 (London, 1982) were also useful in this respect. An integral part of big house life was the estate on which it was located and it is in the area of estate management that the most valuable work has been done by historians in recent years. It was not until the 1970s that the necessary revision of the interpretation which saw the predatory Irish landlord as the central figure in the nineteenth century began to take place. From an historiographical point of view it was an interpretation which owed much to J.E. Pomfret's, The struggle for land in Ireland, 1800-1923 first published back in 1930. Then in 1971 B.L. Solow's provocative The land question and the Irish economy (Cambridge Mass., 1971) threw a new ray of light on an otherwise largely unexplored area. In 1975, the publication of J.S. Donnelly's The land and people of nineteenth century Cork (London, 1975) continued to revise the traditional interpretation of landlordism in Ireland. The most significant contribution in this area has been that of W.E. Vaughan who in a series of publications has shown the necessity of using estate rentals as the most reliable guide to how estates were managed, to the size and frequency of rent increases, and to the extent of landlord indebtedness.9 His

7 more recent thorough examination of Landlords and tenants in mid-Victorian Ireland (Oxford, 1994) has continued to shed new light on this whole area. Vaughan's works have shown that landlords did not benefit proportionately from the agricultural boom of the post-famine period, a conclusion with which this thesis agrees. Both show that rents up to the beginning of the agricultural depression of the late 1870s and the land war which followed were paid punctually but that landlords failed to exploit their estates by extracting their full potential in rental terms or even by diversification of investment that might have relieved some of the burden when rental income fell during and after the land war. Much of what follows regarding the economic decline of Irish landlords has thus been influenced by the work of Vaughan, and that of Solow, Donnelly, and L.P. Curtis Jr. who published an interesting article on landlord indebtedness in post-famine Ireland which appeared in 1980.10 More recently David Seth Jones' Graziers, land reform and political conflict in Ireland (Washington, 1995) has added a further dimension to the study of Irish landlordism in the late nineteenth century by expanding on their role as large farmers. David Cannadine's The decline and fall of the British aristocracy (Yale, 1990) is also of immense value to anybody undertaking a study of the landed class in Britain and Ireland. Politically the landed class of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries has received significantly more attention from historians especially at national level. Patrick Buckland's The Anglo-Irish and the new Ireland, 1885- 1922 (Dublin, 1972) traces the rise and decline of Unionist politics, the main adherents of which were members of the landed class. K.T. Hoppen's works on landlords, politics and society in mid-nineteenth century Ireland have all made impressive contributions to this whole area.11 Again, this thesis goes beyond either Hoppen's or Buckland's works tracing the political involvement, or lack of it, of landlords up to about 1950.

8 This thesis also takes a look at the role of Unionist politics in the lives of landlords in the three northern counties of Monaghan, Cavan and Donegal as distinct from Unionist politics in the three southern provinces of Munster, Connaught and Leinster. This is necessary because until 1920, the Unionists of these counties were part of the wider Ulster movement. However, unlike in the north-east, these counties were predominantly agricultural, and the Protestant tenantry who supported the Unionist movement there were dependent on the landed class for organisation, leadership and even funding. The contribution of big house owners of the three counties to the anti-Home Rule campaign in Ulster right up to partition in the 1920s was thus quite significant. Yet, Monaghan, Cavan and Donegal seem to have been all but forgotten by scholars of both Ulster and southern Unionism. And this is despite the fact that Unionists there suffered more from a sense of desertion than their counterparts further south following the Ulster Unionist Council's decision to accept a six county split in 1920 rather than a nine county cut. They became marooned in the Free State cut off from their co-religionists in the rest of Ulster who shared their political and cultural values. This marked the final stage of Unionism in Ireland outside the six north-eastern counties. Little has been written of the plight of big house owners during the revolutionary period, 1919-23. Michael Hopkinson's otherwise very fine work on the civil war devotes just over two pages to southern landlords at this time despite his own assertion that 'in the long term, the part of the population which suffered most from the revolutionary period were the southern Unionists, particularly those of them who were large landowners'.12 This was one of the more deplorable features of the period which up to now historians have failed to address. Neither has an attempt been made to investigate in detail the actual number of big houses which were destroyed, or indeed who destroyed them and for what reason. This work explores these issues. The year 1993 saw the publication of Mona Hearn's Below stairs: Domestic service remembered in Dublin and beyond, 1880-1922 (Dublin, 1993). Some similar conclusions were reached by herself and the present writer. However, Hearn's work is based largely on a study of domestic life in Dublin where different conditions applied. The big house was much different from other homes which employed servants. It was as stated above the power base of the country's elite. Within the big house a greater diversity of servants existed forming their own hierarchy from butler and housekeeper down to footmen and maids. Whereas in a middle class home one or two servants sufficed, a large landowner's house would have servants to cater for the master's and the mistress' every whim. Servant employment was an aspect of big house life which was to change completely and rather dramatically after World War I. Estate ownership was an integral part of big house life. Rental income provided the finances for the building of these houses and/or for the renovations which were popular in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. More often than not the physical size of a big house was a visible indication of the size of an estate, the social ranking of its owner, and the rental income he drew from his land. The decline of the big house inevitably became associated with the decline in rental income of Irish landlords from the late- 1870s onwards. Less money coming in meant there was less to expend on the upkeep of the big house. The most important primary source material in a study such as this are estate accounts, particularly because so much is based on the economics of the landed estate. Ideally, a series of estate ledgers and accounts should be available for the entire period under study from 1879 to 1950 and, of course, should be legible and organised in a systematic manner to give details of such things as the changes of rents etc. from year to year. These are the most reliable guide to a landlord's financial situation. Unfortunately, with regard to Irish landlords' estate accounts the ideal is too often unattainable. Many series of estate rentals used were unfortunately broken - some covered the early years; some the later years; some covered both but were broken in between. Few collections exist to cover almost the entire period under study as comprehensively as the Ormonde, Clonbrock and Headfort papers all on deposit in the N.L.I. Of equal importance were parliamentary papers. This is particularly true of the returns of advances made under the various land acts (continued in the Iris Oifigiul after 1923) which allowed this writer to trace the acreage sold by the sample owners under each land act and the amount of money received by them. While in the past the ending of landlordism in Ireland has been largely associated with the passing of the Land Act of 1903, these returns showed that the majority of the 100 sample owners were still substantial landowners up to the 1920s and that with the exception of two of them they had retained their big houses. It was the 1930s before many of the sample owners sold, demolished or vacated their big houses coinciding with the reduction of the land they had retained below a viable level by compulsory acquisition under the Free State land acts. Considering the fact that accounts and figures alone do not tell the history of the big house, the choice of a number in the sample was determined by the simultaneous existence of personal papers - correspondence, diaries, memoirs (published and unpublished) - that might tell something of the social life of an individual big house or the political life and opinions of its owners. Therefore, houses such as Currygrane, home of J.M. Wilson in Co. Longford, and Charleville, home of the Moncks in Co. Wicklow, were chosen not because of the richness of estate accounts but because of the existence of personal correspondence that shed light on areas that accounts could not. The household schedule returns of the 1911 census provided background information on these houses and their servants. The mortgage papers of the Representative Church Body and of St. Patrick's College, Maynooth provided important information on the extent of indebtedness of some of the sample owners and on the changing relations between landlords and mortgagees from the 1880s. Annual reports of various landlord bodies such as the Irish Land Convention or the Irish Unionist Alliance or the Protestant Defence Association provided insights into landlords' reactions to economic and socio-political changes. For the landlords of the three counties especially, the material in the P.R.O.N.I. relating to the Unionist clubs and U.V.F. of Monaghan, Cavan and Donegal proved informative. All of these sources were further supplemented by pamphlets and the colonial office papers, especially the monthly police reports from the mid-1880s to 1921, available on microfilm in the N.L.I. These police reports helped to piece together the extent to which landlords were exposed to agrarian agitation during the extended land war and to help estimate the number of big houses burned during the war of independence. This estimate could not be completed without a comprehensive study of the daily editions of the Irish Times and the compensation files in the National Archives and Public Record Office in London. Files from various departments especially those of the Taoiseach and Finance helped sort out the chaos of this period and what followed as the embryonic Free State government began to assert its authority. Newspapers proved to be one of the most valuable sources for this study. Along with the Irish Times, the Freeman’s Journal was used extensively and for more regional issues it was found necessary to supplement them with a range of provincial papers, a full list of which appears in the bibliography. To formulate the overall picture minutes of evidence of select committees and enquiries, official publications, guides, works of reference, contemporary works, and works of fiction did the rest.

12 Chapter 2

The big house: Its environs and personnel on the eve of decline i. Architectural design It is difficult to estimate with certainty the number of big houses in existence in Ireland in the 1870s when this study begins. The most reliable source available to us is Mark Bence-Jones' A guide to Irish country houses. Bence-Jones is quick to point out that despite his best efforts his 'is a single handed effort produced in a very limited time; so that although it has some 2,000 entries it is not complete1.1 Of these 2,000 or so entries, 1,691 were located in the twenty-six counties with which this work is concerned (see table

2.1). It is equally difficult to describe a typical Irish big house from an architectural point of view. Although the majority of houses were built during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, many had survived since the early period of colonisation and had been updated and remodelled over the years. What follows attempts to summarise the history of the architectural design of big houses in Ireland with specific reference to the 100 houses chosen for the sample. By giving an overview of the types of big houses which were prevalent at various periods in Irish history, and by describing individual houses which were representative of certain architectural types, it is hoped to portray some idea of what the country seats of Irish landlords looked like in the 1870s. Eighty-nine of the 100 sample houses were constructed in the period from the beginning of the eighteenth century to the middle of the nineteenth century. Ten survived from the early period of colonisation including Howth, Killeen and Dunsany castles. Only Glaslough in Monaghan, sometimes known as Castle Leslie, was built as late as the 1870s (see table 2.2). Houses which dated from before the eighteenth century, and which continued to be inhabited by landlords and their families, were mainly castles that occupied their ancient sites and maintained their original core structure.

14 They included Dunsany and Killeen in Co. Meath both of which had been inherited by Sir Christopher Plunkett in the fifteenth century. By the 1870s Howth Castle in Co. Dublin had been home to the St Lawrence family for over 700 years. The late fifteenth century great hall of Malahide Castle was the only one of its type to have survived relatively unchanged.2 However, all of these castles had undergone modifications of one type or another down the centuries. Howth which began basically as a medieval keep had a hall and tower with turrets similar to those of the keep added to it in the sixteenth century. The castle was further modernised in 1738 by the fourteenth Lord Howth who added a number of Classical features including Georgian sash windows and a balustraded terrace with a broad flight of steps leading up to the entrance door.3 Killeen was enlarged and altered both at the beginning of the nineteenth century and around 1841 by the eight and ninth earls of Fingall. The latter renovations gave it a Gothic appearance, a style which was very popular with Irish landlords at this time.4 Kilkenny Castle, first built in 1192, was completely refurbished in the 1820s by the architect, William Robertson. Nothing remained from before his time except the three old towers and outer walls and a gateway built by the second duke of Ormonde.5 The centre and south side of the castle contained the hall, drawing room, billiard room and library. On the western side were a number of private apartments.6 By the 1880s, the picture gallery on the eastern side of the castle was used for functions. The floor of the gallery was made of shining parquetry and was strewn with tiger and other animal skins. It also contained Spanish leather covered cabinets, settees, chairs and tables of rare design, old china, and portrait busts on marble pedestals between windows. There were paintings by Van Dyck, Holbein, Kneller, Cuyp and Murillo. The fireplace, in Carrara marble, commemorated important events in the family's history.7 Outside the door of the picture gallery was a Moorish staircase which led up to a chamber

15 that had been specially prepared for the reception of the empress of Austria who in the late nineteenth century had become very fond of hunting in Ireland. This became known as the imperial chamber. The corridor leading to it was decorated with antique tapestries and parchments while another chamber off this corridor was hung with engravings from Shakespearean scenes.8 The castle's dining room was capable of seating 100 guests. The end of the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth centuries saw a movement away from the defence oriented architectural structure and the evolution of the semi-fortified house. The main reason for this was that successive plantations had left the state in control of the country. Landowners felt more secure, so they placed less emphasis on defensive fortifications, although they retained some galleries, loops and fortified outer walls to repel any attacks there might be. By 1880, Beaulieu in Co. Louth was the only house dating from the second half of the sixteenth century that retained its original character. Built in the early 1560s by Sir William Tichbome, it was a two storied house with a dormered attic in a high eaved roof, a six bay side elevation and a seven bay entrance front.9 Sir Edward Lovett Pearce introduced the Classical and Palladian mansions into Ireland around 1720. On the whole, the period from 1720 to around 1840 witnessed a major upsurge in both the construction of new big houses and the extension and modification of existing ones in Ireland. The beginning of this building boom coincided with a period of high landlord enterprise and investment. Mid-Georgian Ireland was characterised by a high degree of landlord prosperity as rents rose sharply from 1710 to 1730 with the falling in of leases. From the mid-1740s rent rolls doubled again and in the last quarter of the century there was another noticeable 'sustained boom in rent levels'.10 The building of houses reflected landlord prosperity at this time as they sought to emulate their counterparts in England.

16 Perhaps the most famous of all the sample houses was Castletown in Co. Kildare. Built in 1719 for Thomas Conolly, it was the largest and one of the earliest Palladian houses in Ireland.11 In July 1719, shortly before it was completed, Bishop Berkeley wrote to Sir John Perceval: 'The most remarkable thing now going on is a house of Mr. Conolly's at Castletown....I hope it will be an ornament to that country'.12 Arthur Young during his tour of Ireland described it 'as the finest house in Ireland and not exceeded by many in England'.13 Maurice Craig argues that it 'stands almost at the beginning of Irish country-house buildings and, as so often happens in the history of art, nothing quite so splendid was ever built again'.14 It was at Castletown that the idea of putting utilitarian farm buildings in the wings of the house to lengthen the facade was bom. Westport, Co.Mayo; Bellamont Forest, Co. Cavan; Summerhill, Co. Meath; Desart Court, Co. Kilkenny and Hazlewood, Co. Sligo, are also amongst the houses from the sample built in the early eighteenth century. In the 1870s Hazlewood was the home of Owen Wynne and the centre of a 28,418 acre estate.15 It was a large Palladian house built on a peninsula in Lough Gill in 1731 to the design of Richard Castle. It had a centre block of three storeys over a basement and three bays joined by curved sweeps to two storey wings three bays long and three bays deep.16 It stood amidst 'unusually attractive' gardens and pleasure grounds encompassing almost 2,300 acres.17 Hazlewood contained a lounge hall with glazed vestibule, a study/smoking room, a drawing room which was approached by a wide staircase, a large dining room, library, three dressing rooms, thirteen family bedrooms, three kitchens, a servants' hall and a housekeeper's room. Outside on the demesne there were extensive domestic offices, a steward's house, three keepers' houses, and a number of labourers' and gardeners' cottages.18 There were five gate lodges situated along the demesne wall with a main avenue to

17 the house of about a mile long which wound its way 'through parklands richly ornamented with specimen trees'.19 The three storey Georgian block house was probably more typical of a middling or small landowner's residence. Bowen's Court in Co. Cork was one of the houses of this design from the sample. It was later to be described by one of its owners, Elizabeth Bowen, as 'an isolated, partly unfinished house, grandly conceived and plainly and strongly built'.20 Her ancestor, Henry Bowen, had left it partly unfinished 'for the inevitable reason that the money ran out'.21 Bowen's Court was a three storied house over a basement with a seven bay entrance front. Both sides of the house were intended to be of six bays but only the west side was completed before the family ran into financial difficulties.22 The passing of the Act of Union caused an upsurge in big house building in Ireland. Politically and socially active landlords were now less inclined to stay in Dublin. They retired to the country to spend more time on their estates which in turn led to new big houses being built or existing ones being improved. Two architects dominated the early nineteenth century period - Francis Johnson and Richard Morrison. Both of them had a hand in transforming Tullynally castle (also known as Pakenham Hall) into 'a small fortified town; a Camelot of the Gothic revival'.23 Between 1801 and 1806, Johnson had been employed by the second earl of Longford to give the plain Georgian house a Gothic exterior. He added a battlemented parapet and comer turrets.24 From 1839 to 1842 Morrison further enlarged the castle by adding a two storey battlemented range on the entrance front containing an apartment for the family which was linked to the house by a tall octagonal tower.25 Morrison was more renowned for his villas, Castlegar being one of his largest and finest designs. In the 1820s, J.P. Neale carried out a survey of the houses of landowners in Great Britain and Ireland. His survey coincided with the high point of Morrison's popularity. In his description of Castlegar, Neale

18 claimed that 'there has been no attempt at architectural display in its external form; but it is much admired for simplicity of design and justness of proportion'.26 Inside, the main entrance was through a hall which was decorated with Doric columns. The principal floor contained a library which measured 31 feet by 20 feet; an oval saloon of 28 feet by 24 feet, the ceiling of which was supported by Corinthian columns; a drawing room 32 feet by 22 feet which was connected with the library and saloon; and a dining parlour of 32 feet by 22 feet which was also connected with the saloon. In the centre of the house between the hall and the saloon was the principal staircase constructed of Portland stone which was lighted from a dome 'of very tasteful construction' and had galleries opening from it on either side separated by screens of Scagliola columns in imitation of Sienna marble.27 Morrison was also involved in the transformation of Castlefreke, the home of Sir John Evans Freke, Lord Carbery, in Co. Cork. Neale tells us that when he inherited in the 1780s Lord Carbery 'found the old castle in such a neglected and dilapidated state that but a small part of it could be preserved'.28 He therefore chose a new site in the parkland and constructed an entire new structure. Then in the 1820s he commissioned Morrison to carry out further alterations. The principal storey consisted of a drawing room in the gallery style measuring 50 feet by 20 feet; a library of 36 feet by 22 feet; a dining room of the same dimensions; and a breakfast room and two other apartments. There was also a 'magnificent hall and staircase', a bed chamber storey of twelve rooms and a basement storey.29 The advent of Gothic in post-union Ireland coincided with the development of the Romantic movement which taught an appreciation of the aesthetic beauty of nature. Bence-Jones feels this is one of the main reasons why Gothic became popular with Irish landlords; Gothic castles were 'more in keeping with the rugged and dramatic Irish scenery'.30 Accordingly, a Georgian house such as Markree in Sligo was converted into a Gothic castle in the early

19 nineteenth century. In the 1860s Col. Edward Cooper had the residence further enlarged and remodelled. Renovations included the replacement of the garden front bow with a massive battlemented and machicolated square tower. A Gothic chapel was also built where the office wing had been.31 But the famine brought this building spree to an abrupt end, which is reflected in the small number of big houses built in the second half of the nineteenth century. Only seven of the houses in the sample were built after 1850. Henceforth big house building was confined to the more wealthy families who built Victorian houses to be fashionable, or to families who were unfortunate enough to have their houses accidentally burned. Glaslough (or Castle Leslie) was built by the Leslie family in Monaghan in 1870. The Victorian Gothic Knocktopher in Co. Kilkenny was built in 1866 after the original residence was destroyed by fire. Castleoliver in Co. Limerick was built around 1850 to give employment in the aftermath of the famine.32 Palmerstown in Kildare was the only example of the Queen Anne revival style in Ireland and it was built by public subscription as a tribute to the sixth earl of Mayo, a former chief secretary of Ireland, who was killed in the Andaman islands in 1872 while governor general of India.33 ii Interior splendour In their heyday, big houses were splendidly decorated and furnished. Writing in 1820 J.P. Neale claimed of houses in Great Britain and Ireland: The mansions of our nobility and gentry, completed at a vast expense, and manifesting a corresponding magnificence of appearance, are many of them the depositories of the choicest specimens of art in the collections of pictures or galleries of sculpture. Natural history in all its branches is also elucidated in the cabinets formed within their walls by their respective patrons; the libraries too are rich in curious and rare examples.34 This was particularly true of the homes of peers and large landowners. A certain degree of extravagance was incumbent on the social function which the

20 big house fulfilled. At the end of the eighteenth century, Lady Caroline Dawson wrote of Carton: 'Everything seems to go on in great state here, the duchess appears in a sack and hoop and diamonds in an afternoon; French horns playing at every meal; and such quantities of plate etc. that one would imagine oneself in a palace.'35 The palatial lifestyle which characterised Carton continued up to the 1870s when it was home to Charles William Fitzgerald, fourth Duke of Leinster who owned an estate of 68,271 acres.36 As with most houses in the sample, Carton took its architectural shape from the beginning of the eighteenth century to around 1820. In 1703, a two storey, nine bay pedimented front, had been added to the original house along with wings joined to the main block in the Palladian manner.37 From the late 1730s, the nineteenth earl of Kildare employed Richard Castle to enlarge the house. His rebuilding virtually replaced all of the former residence. Castle added a storey and lengthened the house by adding a projecting bay at either end. Then in 1815, the third duke of Leinster employed Sir Richard Morrison to once again enlarge and remodel the house for the final time.38 According to the household schedule return of the 1911 census there were sixty rooms in Carton and eighty-six windows at the front. Reception rooms included dining room, billiard room, ante room, music room, a variety of drawing rooms and the library. There was also the duke's personal study and a number of dressing and bed rooms. The duke and duchess it would seem varied both their dressing rooms and their bedrooms according to the seasons - there were summer, autumn and winter rooms at their disposal.39 Writing sometime towards the end of the 1880s, a rather awe struck Rev. Charles Ganly attempted to capture the splendour of Carton, both inside and outside. He enthused: Among the many lovely spots that adorn our land Carton stands in the front rank - surrounded by all the accessories that comprise the beau ideal of an Irish noble-man's seat. Here one might

21 wander beneath the shade of ancestral trees that spread their luxuriance over the green sward, or take a boat and float dreamily over the placid lake, or stroll through the gardens loitering awhile to admire some rare exotic, or traverse the spacious halls and saloons of the mansion, or visiting the library, pore over some of the many rare and choice volumes of the great writers of old, or passing through the picture gallery, revel in the splendid collections, delighted to find in an Irish collection the work of the greatest painter England has produced, Sir Joshua Reynolds, or astonished to meet so many pictures by Albert Cuyp....The collections of objects of vertu, especially of old china, attract attention.40

Most of the gold plate in Carton had been made in Ireland in the mid eighteenth century for the twentieth Earl of Kildare, James Fitzgerald. The most impressive piece was a fountain used for washing glasses.41 An indication of the size of the art collection in Carton is seen in the fact that in 1902 the estate's trustees sold 140 paintings including works of Van der Hayden, Breughel and Gainsborough 42 As dinner was a very formal social occasion, display was imperative. When Charleville was up for sale in the 1930s, its catalogue of contents drew attention to such valuables as a Waterford cut glass water jug and salad bowl which had a boat shaped moulded base and mitred border.43 It also drew attention to a 169 piece Belleek china dinner service, a 134 piece Bisto breakfast service, a 35 piece Worcester hand painted dessert service and a 76 piece Cauldon porcelain dinner service.44 Paintings sold out of Dartrey Castle in 1937 included works by El Greco, Zoffany, Hamilton, and Coates and others of the early English, Flemish and Italian schools described as being 'of considerable importance'.45 Dartrey was a large Elizabethan Revival mansion, built in 1846 by Richard Dawson, first Earl of Dartrey, replacing an earlier house built around 1770. It was situated in a heavily wooded demesne of 600 acres on the outskirts of Rockcorry village in Co. Monaghan. The castle overlooked Lough Dromore

22 where a mausoleum had been built in the 1770s to the design of James Wyatt in memory of the wife of Thomas Dawson. According to the 1911 census return, there were sixty-six rooms in the castle. In the middle of the dining room stood a 20 feet by 6 feet Victorian mahogany table.46 The hall furniture included a mahogany pedestal sideboard, a walnut writing table and an eighteenth century brocket clock by Rimbault of London which had silvered arch brass dials, a chiming movement and a music box that played twelve airs.47 The ballroom contained a Broadwood concert grand piano in a rosewood case, a twelve foot gilt framed settee, a seven foot Chesterfield settee, a walnut double end couch, thirty chairs and, as in most rooms, a variety of vases, candelabras, and ornaments.48 A library was essential, it seems, in all big houses. Indeed, when landlords came under attack from critics as decline set in libraries were referred to as symbolic of this decline and the perceived apathy of landlords towards it. W.E.H. Lecky claimed that it was 'noticeable that libraries in country houses in Ireland stop dead at the year 1830, no additions are subsequently made...that generation and succeeding ones were aware that power and virtue were slipping from them'.49 Similarly, in 1909, George Birmingham wrote of landlords: 'Beside them on their shelves are their old books, good books which represent the culture of their fathers. They themselves have bought no books since the year in which Gladstone passed the first of his land acts.'30 Privately published inventories of houses' contents, published catalogues and sales catalogues provide a valuable insight into the furnishings of big houses. In 1931, Dartrey had over 5,000 volumes - biographies; histories; novels by Thackeray, Disraeli, Dickens, Edgeworth etc.; collections of poets such as Byron, Gray, Spencer, Pope, and Shakespeare; memoirs of Napoleon, Henry Grattan, Wolfe Tone; books on military tactics, zoology, religion and fairytales.51 Lord and Lady Dartrey both had private studies which they could use, for example, to pen correspondence. These rooms contained lounge chairs, easy

23 chairs and writing desks. In Lord Dartrey's study was an oil painting of St. Jerome by El Greco. There was also a larger study which had a mahogany pedestal writing table fitted with drawers and cupboards and leather tops. This room also contained a variety of other mahogany tables, mahogany dining chairs on cabriole legs, a range of mahogany book shelves, and gilt oval framed portraits of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert.32 Again all these rooms had a myriad of ornaments such as twenty-one inch Famille Verte porcelain vases, Imari and Cloisonne vases, bronze models of Cleopatra's needle and the Vendomme column. Besides portraits and other paintings, the walls were covered in big game trophies, and a stuffed mounted tiger's head in a glass case on a bamboo stand stood in the study. The billiards room in Dartrey contained everything necessary for sports activities. There was a full size mahogany framed billiard table with thirty-three ivory billiard and pool balls and an ivory triangle for racking them. There were three model eighteenth century masted men-o'-war fitted for fifty-two guns, ring boards, swords for fencing, cricket bats and stumps, tennis nets and rackets. Outside on the demesne was an eighteen hole golf links. Upstairs the bedroom corridor, lined with paintings by the likes of Reubens, Reynolds, and Zoffany, had fifteen family bedrooms, a schoolroom for the children’s tuition and a bathroom. The bedrooms were mainly named after colours which presumably predominated within. There was, for example, the large red room, the small pink room, the green room, the buff room, the chintz room and the blue room. The main bedroom was the lake room which overlooked Lough Dromore. It had a seven foot, four poster bed of teakwood richly carved after a Chippendale design by Indian craftsmen.53 There was also a three piece walnut bedroom suite consisting of a six foot wardrobe with mirrors, a four foot pedestal dressing table and a three foot six inches marble top wash stand. The room also contained a mahogany framed lounge chair, a

24 carved oak log box and fire guard, a walnut framed Demoiselle chair, four more mahogany framed chairs and a walnut framed bedroom couch.54 At Shelton Abbey, home of the earl of Wicklow, the walls of the entrance hall were wainscoted with carved oak and the ceiling ornamented with carved oak beams and gilt pendants. From this, one entered the great hall. Opposite to the entrance door, and elevated in an oak gallery, was an organ. From the hall opened a cloister gallery 'of considerable length', lighted with stained glass tracery windows, and forming the approach to all the principal rooms.55 According to J.P. Neale in the 1820s, the principal rooms were 'adorned with a valuable collection of paintings of the Italian, French and Flemish schools', while the library contained 'an extensive collection of scarce and valuable books, medals, drawings and engravings'.56 At Bessborough Co. Kilkenny, Neale found the hall to be large, handsome 'and in some respects unique for it is adorned by four Ionic columns of Kilkenny marble, each of the shafts consisting of one entire mass, ten feet six inches high'.57 Here the saloon was also furnished with a fine collection of paintings 'deserving the attention of the connoisseur'.58 They included 'Peter's Denial' by Gerard Segers; 'Nativity' by Jordaens; 'Birds' by Hondekoeter, and several landscapes by Lucatelli and Honizanti.59 At Lyons Co. Kildare, home of Lord Cloncurry, scenes representing dawn, day and night were painted on the walls of the main drawing room. On the walls of an inner drawing room were painted four local waterfalls including Powerscourt and Leixlip, while the walls of the dining room were painted with a scene of Dublin bay and the story of Daedalus in bas relief.60 Lyons, like many big houses, had benefited from the continental tours undertaken by successive heirs. Three of the original granite stones in its portico came from the Golden House of Nero in Rome. Originally, they had been placed in the banqueting hall of the Famesine palace by Raphael and were subsequently bought from the king of Naples by the second Lord Cloncurry.

25 The fourth column was found in the Baths of Titus in Rome. The hall of the house contained a sarcophagus of white marble from the gardens of Venus at Tivoli.61 Coole Park was much less extravagant, but still another house which benefited from its owners' continental tours. Coole was more representative of the houses of more modest landowners than the likes of Cloncurry, Dartrey or Leinster. It was a three storey block house built around 1770 by Robert Gregory. According to the return of the 1911 census, it had fourteen rooms, and eighteen windows in the front. In the 1870s it was home to Sir William Henry Gregory who was governor of Ceylon from 1872 to 1877. W.B. Yeats later wrote of how Coole Park had acquired much of its furnishings : Every generation had left its memorial .. . Eldest sons had done the grand tour, returning with statues and pictures....Mogul or Persian paintings had been brought from the Far East by a Gregory chairman of the East India Company, great earthenware ewers and basins, great silver bowls by Lady Gregory's husband .... [Richard Gregory] had brought in bullock carts through Italy the marble copy of the Venus De Medici in the drawing room, added to the library the Greek and Roman classics bound by famous French and English binders .... [Those paintings] that I keep most in memory are a Canaletto, a Guardia, a Zurbaran.62 Smaller landowners, in general, could not afford to give the same elegance to the interior of their homes, no more than they could afford to build on such a grand scale as the Dartreys or dukes of Leinster. According to Bence-Jones: 'Good proportions and handsome joinery -shouldered doorcases, stairs with robust turned balusters' were all they could hope for to give an air of dignity to their houses.63 Apart from perhaps plain cornices and friezes, the plasterwork characteristic of the larger landowners' houses was generally far beyond them. But they still lived in relative splendour until well into the nineteenth century. Their houses may not have been as spacious but they, too, ensured that their rooms were fit for entertaining.

26 In her autobiography, Elizabeth Bowen recreated her ancestral home, Bowen's Court, which in the 1880s was supported by an estate of around 6,700 acres. The house was set in a shallow hollow, but was carefully sheltered by plantations.64 Two avenues led up to it and they met in a bow of gravel under the front steps.65 Inside there were about sixteen rooms described by Bowen as 'large' and 'lofty'.66 In the basement area were the kitchen and larder, the wood room, the game room, the servants’ hall, the laundry and the wine and coal cellars. On the groundfloor was the library which at the time of writing Bowen's Court smelt 'of dry calf bindings, humid Victorian bindings, polish, plaster, worn carpet and wood smoke'.67 The drawing room still had the grand piano and the walls were still decorated with the white, grey and gold scrolled wallpaper put up when her grandmother got married.68 Originally, the house was to have had a ballroom but the construction of it was never actually finished.69 iii Household staff In order to keep big houses going it was necessary for landlords to employ a number and variety of household servants to carry out all types of menial tasks such as cooking, waitering, cleaning, laundry and child care. In houses of larger landowners there were servants to attend personally to the master and the mistress. Some houses employed clock winders and chamber pot boys. Thus, in 1880, The servant's practical guide proclaimed that 'without the co-operation of well trained servants, domestic machinery is thrown completely out of gear, and the best bred of hostesses placed at a disadvantage'.70 Historians of the big house in Britain have claimed that servants were utilised as status symbols. They were hired in large numbers for ceremony and show.71 This may have been the case, but one needs to remember that landowners' houses required constant labour-intensive maintenance. The very size of these houses with their numerous rooms and extensive furnishings

27 required that an adequate staff be on hand to keep them presentable. Landlords' propensity for entertaining, for dining formally, for acting as hosts during the hunting season or during race meets such as Punchestown, necessitated more than the two or three maid servants that sufficed in a middle class home. Employees formed a hierarchical structure from butler and housekeeper to hallboys and scullerymaids in the house itself. In 1911, a peer, like the Marquis Conyngham of Slane, could employ a private nurse, governess, two lady's maids, a butler, valet, two footmen, hallboy, cook, scullery, kitchen, parlour, dairy and house maids.72 Smaller landowners such as J.M. Wilson of Currygrane sufficed with a cook and four maids. At the top of this hierarchical structure was the butler and the housekeeper. General supervision of the men was undertaken by the butler while the housekeeper supervised the female staff. In effect, they were both largely responsible for the day to day organisation of the household schedule. Both positions commanded respect. The butler had a variety of chores to oversee. He was responsible for the household plate, ensuring that it was locked safely away at night. If there was no valet, (only seven houses in the sample returned one in the 1911 census although it is likely a few were absent with their employers), the butler was also responsible for his master's wardrobe. He waited at breakfast, luncheon, tea and dinner along with the footmen. He announced dinner and helped the footmen to clear the table. In houses where there were no footmen, he answered the door. He was also in charge of the wine cellar. With the absence of footmen and valets in some of the houses which returned butlers, he may have been a very busy man. However, few were likely to have been as busy as the butler at Woodbrook. When Col. Kirkwood was wooing his wife-to-be at the turn of the century, he told her stories about the ancient carriage and the leaking roof, and how the butler seldom turned up in time to wait at table ... because something usually happened to delay him in the stables

28 and when he did come the smell of horse dung from his boots was mingled with the food.73 Moving down the manservant line, the valet was next principally because he was his lordship's personal servant, having close contact with the master and being in charge of his wardrobe. Only the households of the larger landowners in the sample employed them. The seven returned in the census were based at Shelton, Powerscourt, Headfort, Slane, Kilkenny Castle, Clonbrock and Castletown. There were twenty-eight owners absent on the night, mainly large landowners, and it is probable that had they been at home more valets would have been returned.. The footmen were directly subordinate to the butler. They attended the carriage, cleaned boots, carried coal, cleaned plate, waited at table and answered the bell. All but twenty-seven of the sample houses returned footmen (excluding those where proprietors were absent). However, one has to be careful here because some households, such as Borris in Carlow, returned most employees under the generalisation of 'servant', at least one of which may have been a footman. But twenty-two of these houses including, for example, Newtownbond, Currygrane, Beaulieu, Newport and Braganstown belonged to small or middling landowners who normally sufficed with a cook and handful of servants. In such instances the overworked maids doubled as footmen. Below the footmen, but exclusive to the homes of peers and large landowners were a variety of other male servants. Castletown, Slane, Clonbrock and Woodlawn returned hall boys; Castletown and Woodlawn had two 'odd' men and scullery boys; Dartrey had two live-in electricians by 1911; Bishopscourt had a pantry boy, while Carton had a clock winder and two chamber pot boys. Besides directing the female staff, a housekeeper supervised the household linen and china closet. She arranged bedrooms in consultation with the mistress, allocating the rooms to be occupied by visitors and their servants.

29 She also controlled the household stores, being in charge of ordering and having to keep records of items purchased. The servant's practical guide of 1880 defined her functions as follows: She makes the preserves and bottles the fruit; she is referred to respecting all domestic arrangements; she keeps the housekeeping accounts, and the greater part of the needlework required in the house is done by her, with or without assistance.74 The housekeeper became recognised as the female counterpart to the butler, even though because of her sex she usually received a much smaller salary.75 Elizabeth, Countess Fingall, said that she 'often marvelled at the way in which a housekeeper or butler could carry the whole weight of some big house on their shoulders - not the house only but the people who live in it as well’.76 She went on to claim that Mrs. Jones, her housekeeper, 'was the real ruler' at Killeen, keeping even Lady Fingall herself 'in her place severely’.77 In those houses that couldn't afford a housekeeper the roles of housekeeper and cook were amalgamated, with the cook then assuming responsibility for most of the former's obligations. Such a house was Clohamon where a former servant there, Annie Mac Manus, claimed the cook 'was the boss... every complaint went to her'.78 In larger houses, the cooks were assisted by kitchen and scullery maids. In the smaller houses, housemaids carried out the cook's directions.

Annie Mac Manus served her time for five years before being promoted to cook, a period she reckoned was normal for most houses. Cooks, she argued, tended to guard their positions in the household. 'An old cook’, Annie told me, 'mightn't let you see her recipe for a cake for five years'. Then again their positions was worth guarding. The servant's practical guide pointed out that some ladies stand very much in awe of their cooks, knowing that those who consider themselves to be thoroughly experienced will not brook fault-finding or interference with their manner of cooking, and give notice to leave on the smallest pretext. Thus when ladies obtain a really good cook, they deal with her

30 delicately, and are inclined to let her have her own way with regard to serving the dinner.

This is hardly surprising considering the importance landlords attached to dinners, luncheons and even breakfasts. Below the cook, the larger houses employed a variety of maids to help in the kitchen, dining room and bedrooms. In the larger households the kitchenmaid had to prepare the food for the cook and cater for the staff as well as do the washing up and scrubbing. If they were fortunate, they had the help of a scullery maid who was situated at the bottom of the big house hierarchy. The larger houses in the returns refer to head housemaids or fifst housemaids. Basically they supervised the work of their subordinates in a household where several maids were employed. The housemaids were primarily concerned with keeping the principal rooms in the house clean. With the enormous amounts of vases, ornaments, and generally objects of great value, a housemaid's work could be both arduous and stressful. Breakage of anything valuable could result in immediate dismissal or a fine to be stopped out of salaries.79 An anonymous pamphlet published in England in 1850 entitled Common sense for housemaids advised that any breakages should be reported immediately. Not to do so was 'not only mean and dishonourable to an earthly master, but it is a sin against God’.80 iv The demesne Moving out from the residence itself the demesne played an important role in the day to day life of the big house. It was the focal point of the estate. It was from here that the demesne farm was organised under the supervision of the estate steward who usually resided in provided accommodation on the demesne. It also contained the kitchen garden which contributed to the big house's self sufficiency.

31 Demesnes were also recreational areas composed of gardens for leisurely strolls, lawns for games of croquet or tennis, and wooded areas for the preservation of game for the more strenuous pastimes of shooting and hunting. Demesnes of the sample houses varied greatly in size and often bore no proportional relationship to the size of the estate. A huge estate such as Lord Ventry's in Kerry of over 93,600 acres had a demesne of only 170 acres.81 On the other hand, the marquis of Drogheda's demesne at Moore Abbey in Kildare was almost 1,300 acres in size while his total estate area was 19,300.82 73 per cent of the 100 demesnes were below 600 acres in size while the remaining 27 per cent were over 600 acres (see table 2.3). Demesnes were also characterised by the existence of outoffices. Sometimes, as in the case of houses such as Castletown, utilitarian farm buildings formed an extension of the house. The Palladian design facilitated this. Generally, however, outoffices were arranged around the sides of a cobbled courtyard which was entered by an archway. These were not necessarily constructed adjacent to the family residence. In the case of Dartrey, they were built about a mile from the house just off one of the main avenues entering the estate. Here the outoffices were of cut stone and red brick built in a circle around a cobbled yard which one entered through high iron gates. The steward's house was directly across the avenue. It was a large two-storied red brick residence overlooking Lough Dromore. Above the stables were living quarters for the grooms.83 Across the road was a row of houses in Foster Place built for estate labourers. These labourers were paid five shillings per week in the 1880s, out of which one shilling per week was stopped as rent for these houses.84 The number of outoffices varied according to the size of the estate or of the demesne. According to the census returns three big houses returned more than seventy outoffices. These were Clonbrock and Woodlawn in Galway and Slane Castle in Meath. Slane, for example, returned forty stables, four coach houses, six sheds, three cow houses, two harness rooms, two fowl houses, two

32 boiling houses and one calf shed, dairy, bam, workshop, potato shed, store, forge, laundry, kennels, sawmill, motor shed and petrol light house. At the other extreme four houses returned less than ten outoffices. These belonged to the smaller estates such as Beaulieu in Louth owned by the Montgomery family and comprising about 1,400 acres. Beaulieu returned only eight outoffices i.e. a stable, coach house, cow house, dairy, fowl house and coal shed (see table 2.4). The existence of these buildings contributed to the self-sufficiency of each estate. Inside the walls of the demesne was a hive of industry with blacksmiths, carpenters, masons, grooms, gardeners, labourers, launderers all provided with workshops or storage areas for their needs. Outhouses of all types were available for animals - dairies, piggeries, calf sheds, cow houses and particularly stables. The predominance of stables not only reflected the importance of horses in farm work and transport but also their importance to the social lives of landlords and their families who spent quite an amount of their leisure time hunting and racing (see table 2.5). Owners of houses such as Slane (Lord Conyngham) Woodlawn (Lord Ashtown), Palmerston (Lord Mayo), Bishopscourt (Lord Clonmell), Killeen (Lord Fingall), Headfort (Lord Headfort), Summerhill (Lord Langford), Curraghmore (Lord Waterford) and Dartrey (Lord Dartrey) all of whom, as we shall see, were sporting enthusiasts returned between sixteen and forty stables. The part of the demesne which actually surrounded the big house formed an almost artificial landscape that would largely have been shaped from the eighteenth century onwards. The style and grandeur of a large landowner's gardens usually distinguished his residence once more from that of a smaller landowner. Again perhaps due to the growing influence of the Romantic movement, the old French or Dutch type gardens that had surrounded the larger house were swept away in the late eighteenth century and replaced by a manmade landscape where, according to Guinness and Ryan, 'art and nature in

33 just union' reigned.85 'Streets of water' were formed by diverting and widening streams, and lakes and fish ponds were dug. Chinese or Classical type ornamental bridges were erected to embellish the natural beauty.86 In the third quarter of the eighteenth century, the walled garden became a feature of big houses.87 It usually lay to one side of the house and more often than not contained an orchard, a large area for vegetables and flowers and a conservatory used to nurture the growth of exotic flowers and sometimes grapes. Today the walled garden of Glenveagh in Co. Donegal maintains much of its original character. The Knight of Glin and Edward Malins describe it as follows: Its neat, box-lined paths enclose vegetables, fruit and flowers for the house. The central path runs through a fine herbaceous border. From the south- west comer a path leads up to a dramatic feature of Glenveagh - the Aztec-like flight of sixty-seven steps that climb to the famous viewpoint among massive plantings of rhododendrons.88

By the mid nineteenth century, the laying out of formal gardens in what was termed the French Baroque style grew in popularity. Borders, carpet beds, paths and clipped hedges surrounded many houses. Consequently, as one observer has put it, these places became elysiums rather than gardens as we know them.89 Powerscourt was perhaps one of the most notable examples of such a garden being what Edward Malins and the Knight of Glin describe as 'possibly the last example of the aristocratic tradition of gardening in Europe made at a time when fashionable horticulturists usually had more influence than artists or architects'.90 From the house stretched broad terraces, dotted here and there with sculptures of gods, animals - present, extinct or mythical - and even statues of prominent ancestors. The terraces dropped to a large formal pond a few hundred yards from the house. It was known as the Triton pond after its central fountain, that of Neptune. A flight of steps bisected the north-south

34 axis. They were balustraded in Baroque wrought iron and painted black and gold. The platform was made up of different coloured pebbles woven into intricate designs. Below this were five lesser terraces with flights of steps which led to a grille at the pool's edge. On each side of the grille stood two golden winged horses of Victory and Fame.91 Another smaller pool lay to the west. It was situated in a walled garden that could be entered through a number of elegant wrought iron gates. One of these, known as the Bamberg gate, had been taken from Bavaria. It had a l'oeil perspective design in delicate scroll work and was topped by a vase of delicate iron flowers. In the dip beyond this pool was a Japanese garden and below it one of the finest arboretums in Ireland containing a 200 foot sitka spruce, a coppice of monkey puzzles, a huge blue gum and a collection of southern hemisphere beeches.92 Plantations and woodland were an integral part of a demesne. Not only did they provide shelter and privacy, they also catered for landlords' interests in sports such as hunting and shooting. Fox coverts were to be found in many demesnes and other forms of game were reared there. Plantations, as at Dartrey, were usually criss-crossed by a network of paths to allow owners and visitors to walk in privacy and peace. The eastern side of the hill on which Castlcffeke was built was 'clotted from its base with thriving plantations'.93 There was approximately 120 acres of woodland. Along the base of the hill stretched the extensive pleasure grounds and gardens. In the 1820s, the evergreens there were said to be 'remarkably fine, particularly the arbutus which thrives with unusual richness'.94 The castle, which unfortunately was sold and subsequently dismantled in 1952, was spectacularly located or so J.P. Neale thought in the 1820s when he wrote: When the view of the place first opens on the traveller, whose road from the eastward winds through a deep narrow glen, the whole has a grand and imposing appearance, presenting an extensive range of woodlands and undulating ground, with the fine turretted structure rising above it.95

35 Around this time, the plantations at Castlegar were also of 'considerable extent and executed with great judgement'.96 In the demesne of Moydrum Castle, home of Lord Castlemaine in Westmeath, the pleasure grounds were 'extensive, tastefully laid out and improved'.97 At Shelton Abbey, the woods were composed mainly of oak, beech and chestnut. The beech trees near the house itself were reputedly amongst the first of their species to have been planted in Ireland.98 Again the house was ideally located from a scenic point of view: The undulating forms of the grounds exhibit the woods with their rich masses of foliage to great advantage from the surrounding country; and the grandeur of the mountains which terminate the prospect in every direction except one, where it is bounded by the sea are particularly striking.99

Lyons was also well sheltered by woods and plantations. At the back of the mansion was a verdant hill. At the base of it and between it and the mansion was a lake, diversified with islands.100 Arthur Young described Castletown as being located in the middle of an extensive lawn which was 'quite surrounded with fine plantations disposed to the best advantage to the north...through which many winding walks lead, with the convenience of many ornamented seats, rooms etc.'101 But not all gardens were as grand as those described above or at least not to every contemporary commentator's taste. In the 1840s, Sir William Wilde had this to say of Headfort in his History o f the Boyne and Blackwater. The noble demesne belonging to the marquess of Headfort, though possessing no natural features that attract attention, has in its general appearance a degree of significance arising from its extent, unity of design, the richness of verdure, the long and gently inclined planes into which the surface is naturally disposed, and the arrangement and preservation of the plantations.102 Even the architectural structure of Headfort attracted little praise from contemporaries. In 1792, George Hardinge described the castle as being 'more

36 like a college or an infirmary'.103 The irony of the comparison is that now, two hundred years later, three quarters of the house are being used by a preparatory school. Similarly J.P. Neale was not impressed by some of the 'improvements' carried out to the grounds of Castle Howard in Co. Wicklow in the 1820s. A new approach road to the castle had been constructed at this time. To connect it with the public road a single-arched bridge was built across the river. Neale commented as follows: We regret that the same good taste which directed the other improvements was not consulted in this. An arch of a very unsightly appearance, crowned with a lion, discordant alike with the castle to which it forms the approach, and with the scenery which environs it, has been lately erected on this bridge; and though doubtless intended as an imbellishment, its effect is highly injurious.104 Open parkland, beyond the plantations and in front of the houses, was another feature of demesnes. Here, cattle and horses grazed. While these animals were visible from the houses, they were usually kept away from them by fences or ha-has which were sunk fences or ditches. Elizabeth Bowen described a parkland as follows: On each side [of the avenue] lie those tree-studded grass spaces we Anglo-Irish call lawns and English people puzzle us by speaking of as 'the park'. On these browse cattle, or there may be horses out on grass. A second gate...keeps these away from the house in its inner circle of trees. Having shut this clunking white gate behind one, one takes the last reach of avenue and meets the faded, dark-windowed and somewhat hypnotic stare of the big house.105 Looking south from Kilruddery in Co. Wicklow, the layout of the demesne consisted of twin canals with a round pond and fountain at the end of the garden. Close by, there was a tennis court. From the mid-nineteenth century, the laying out of tennis courts had become a common feature in demesnes, as were cricket and croquets lawns. Beyond the pond at Kilruddery was a ha-ha dividing the gardens from the parkland. To the east of the canal

37 were a number of walks flanked by hedges of hornbeam, beech, lime and yew trees. To the west of the canals was a wooded area of glades and vistas. There was also a sylvan theatre formed within a bay hedge.106 v Demesne employees As with the interior of the house the upkeep of demesne and gardens required a large workforce. From the household schedule returns of 1901 and 1911, it is possible to see the range of employees on the demesne, although it is not possible to realistically quantify how many were employed on all or even individual estates. It was the job of the steward to supervise the activities of these employees, many of whom lived in cottages provided by the landlord, or in the case of the lodgekeeper in those quaint little stone-cut buildings situated at strategic points along the demesne walls. These houses were of a much higher standard than the majority of homes belonging to local farmers. This was especially true of the stewards's homes which were usually leased from the landlord. The home of the earl of Dartrey's steward, for example, had thirteen rooms, six windows at the front and eight outoffices including three stables.107 Demesne workers, the function of whom are largely self explanatory, included gardeners, grooms, coachmen, agricultural labourers, herds, shepherds, gamekeepers, yardmen, blacksmiths, foresters or wood rangers, carpenters, masons and plasterers. A number of members of the one family were often employed on the demesne in various capacities. Of the eighty-one estates in respect of which it was possible to determine at least some workers, only twenty-six did not return members of the same family. And in the majority of these cases, returns were too small to rule out the possibility that members of the same families were not employed there. For example, only five demesne workers were found for Mote, four for Frenchpark, three for Castleffogarty and five for Mount Congreve.

38 At Gowran in Co. Kilkenny, five members of the Millea family were employed, two as agricultural labourers, two as gardeners and one as a domestic in the castle itself. At Borris in Co. Carlow, four members of the Kelly family were stonemasons. On the Oak Park demesne in the same county, two Whelans were agricultural labourers. On the Famham demesne in Co. Cavan, George Harper was a coachman, his wife, Margaret, was a laundress, while their son, James, was a garden boy. It was the same on small estates as on large ones. At Currygrane in Co. Longford, two Reillys and two Judges were all labourers. At Barmeath in Co. Louth, a father and son by the name of Bird were employed as shepherds. At neighbouring Braganstown, five members of the Faulkiner family were employed. The father was a dairyman while his four sons were labourers. Three of the Donnellys were also employed there. Again two sons were labourers while their father was a gardener. Families often specialised in certain aspects of demesne labour. At Howth, three members of the Hartford family were gardeners, as were three members of the Quinn family at Clonbrock. At Hazlewood, a father and his three sons were gamekeepers, as were two members of the Sugrue family at Burnham. One other point perhaps worth mentioning at this stage is the willingness of some demesne workers, especially stewards and gamekeepers, to move from estate to estate. Take, for example, D. Me Leish, the Presbyterian gamekeeper employed at Slane. His mother was Scottish, he himself was bom in Kildare, his wife was from Donegal, his eldest son was bom in Fermanagh, his next two sons were bom in Monaghan, while his youngest was bom in Meath. The Blake of Ballyglunin papers provide us with some indication of the type of contracts or agreements that some landlords made with their demesne workers. Walter Blake's steward signed the following: I, Thomas Burke, in acknowledging that I have no claim of any kind against the late Mr. Martin J. Blake and that I have been paid in full for all services I may have ever rendered to that

39 gentleman herewith offer the whole of my time and service to the best of my ability to you Mr. Walter Blake for an annual stipend of fifty pounds and in getting in addition to this sum two shillings and six pence per day, for every four and twenty hours you may require my attendance from home to defray my board and lodgings expenses while away.108 A lodgekeeper on the estate promised to have the gate properly attended to if in consideration of such service he will allow me the grass of a cow, eight pounds a year, the use of both the garden attached to and the gate house which latter I shall keep in good repair and order and will evacuate at any time I may be so desired.109 With regard to lodgekeepers, a list of rules to be observed by one at Kilkenny Castle gives us some indication of their duties. The entrance gate had to be opened at 6 a.m. daily to admit workmen. No servants were allowed to pass out through the gate after 9 p.m. or to be admitted after 10 p.m. unless they had received special permission. No nurse maids with children were to be admitted but children could be admitted with their parents. The lodgekeeper had to sleep at the lodge and take breakfast and tea there. He was to go to dinner at 1.15 p.m. and return by 2 p.m. During his absence the 'oddman' or a stable hand was to take his place. The gate lodge was not to be left unoccupied at any time.110 Gamekeepers held a special place in Shane Leslie's memory. To him they were 'a hardy crew' who brought up himself and his brother Norman. Leslie wrote: They were untiring as they trotted us over the bogs in daily pursuit of the snipe. They whisked us over gaping drains and seemed to know where the snipe would be almost to the rush and the bush. When we suffered cuts they bound them up with cobwebs.111 James Vogan the head gamekeeper on the Leslie estate in Monaghan in the latter decades of the nineteenth century came in for special commendation. This 'red bearded Celt' was considered to be the children's 'real governess'. A

40 fisherman extraordinaire and a perfect shot, Vogan was 'acquainted with the ways of fur, feather and fin'. Sir Shane wrote: We threw ourselves into any lessons whose accomplishment would be followed by an excursion with James Vogan. Our greatest treat was to rise at six with the gardeners when an immense bell was clanged in the high boughs of a lime tree by a white bearded lacky like Time himself... and hurriedly dressing in green Caledonian tweeds run across the river to the hill opposite and over into the woods and up another hill to the gamekeeper's house for breakfast prepared by his sister.112 vi Demesne farming From the 1850s more Irish landlords had increasingly supplemented their rental incomes by developing their farming interests on a much larger scale.113 To facilitate this, they retained large tracts of untenanted land, usually though not necessarily, in the vicinity of their demesnes. Untenanted land was basically land on which no formal tenancy had been created and where the landlord was therefore the rateable occupant. It consisted of the demesne and parkland, the 'home farm' which was close by, out farms which were perhaps a distance away but which were retained by the landlord for farming purposes, and finally mountain areas used for grazing or bog used for turbary. A return for 1906 calculated that there was an estimated 2.6 million acres of untenanted land in Ireland.114 Of this the sample group were the rateable occupiers of just over 240,000 acres. Approximately, 50,500 acres was demesne land with a rateable valuation of £37,600. Highly fertile pasture had a rateable valuation of fifteen shillings per acre at the beginning of the twentieth century. That being the case a few random examples from the sample illustrates the nature of the untenanted land retained by the 100 owners. In Carlow, Henry Bruen retained one tract of 1,288 acres valued at £977; in the same county William Duckett held four separate tracts amounting to around 750 acres valued at £630; in Dublin the earl of Howth had 446 acres valued at £491; in Monaghan the earl of Dartrey held 1.000 acres valued at £920. In Kildare Lord Cloncurry retained substantial tracts of highly valued land. These included 612 acres valued at £495, 712 acres at £711, 426 acres at £466, and 204 acres at £188.115 The same was true of the smaller landowners from the sample - in their case they often retained a higher proportion of their estates in untenanted land. The Beaumont-Nesbitts farmed almost 1,300 acres (25 per cent) of their Tubberdaly estate in King's County. Of their 5,000 acre estate in Kildare, the Bartons retained 1,800 acres (36 per cent).116 In the 1850s, Willoughby Bond of Farragh farmed about one third of his 6.000 acre Longford estate. In the 1920s his grand-daughter claimed that he was 'a bom farmer' who 'loved cattle and considered them the safest of investments'.117 From 1855 to 1890, William Ross Mahon of Castlegar in Co. Galway appropriated over 2,000 acres from large graziers as their leases expired and thereby increased the acreage of his untenanted land by 80 per cent and its value by 300 per cent.118 He was now ranching approximately one third of his estate. In 1850, his predecessor, James Ross Mahon, had farmed a mere 250 acres or so rearing 48 heifers and 160 lambs. By 1890, William Ross was rearing 1,000 cattle and 2,000 sheep on a ranch over ten times the size.119 His gross stock sales in 1890 were over £8,200 compared to his predecessor's £170 in 1850.120 In his evidence to the Royal Commission on Congestion in Ireland in 1907, another of the sample owners, Lord Ashtown described himself as 'a resident landlord in Co. Galway, a farmer on a large scale and a large employer of labour'.121 Ashtown bred his own stock on a 1,200 acre farm. He also bought young stock from small farmers, as did all the graziers in the locality, kept it for twelve to eighteen months and then passed it on to the Leinster graziers.122 Besides his 1,200 acres of grazing, Ashtown also farmed an 800 acre demesne and 3,700 acres in out farms.123

42 Lord Cloncurry was another of the sample owners who became a large rancher from the 1850s. In his submissions to the Cowper Commission in 1887, he said he farmed 2,300 acres of his own land in Kildare, Dublin and Meath as well as 300 acres rented from the court of chancery. He had 1,300 acres of mountain land in Galway for winterage. It was practically all grass land as he concentrated in buying store cattle, fattening them and exporting them to England. He reared improved breeds of cattle and sheep and tried to influence his tenants to adapt more progressive methods of 'high farming'.124 In 1881, Finlay Dun claimed that Cloncurry had 'bought out several wretched tenants who were farming miserably and drifting further and deeper into difficulties'.125 Cloncurry's personal diaries reveal a man who was very interested in the day to day affairs of his farm. When not referring to his hunting exploits his diary entries record his regular trips around the Lyons farm, the orders he had given to his farm employees or comments on farm improvements carried out at his behest. One day in January 1886, for example, he was 'out early and went to the silos, cattle sheds, and found the silage remarkably good at south end of hay houses'.126 Some time later, he 'arranged for cutting furze on hill to make temporary road for carts at the round hay rick south of the hill, looked at all the cattle, 217 under Flanagan's care on south side'.127 Viscount Doneraile had also begun farming a large demesne about 1850. Again, he specialised in the fattening of cattle. Although not very successful largely because of high labour bills and the lack of investment in fertilisers, his was a new departure for that particular family.128 An inventory and valuation of stock, crops and implements on the farm for 1854 shows that there was a total of 81 homed cattle valued at £1,002 on the demesne farm, 556 sheep valued at £1,056 and 8 farm horses valued at £112. There was a stock of 90 barrels of wheat valued at £180, 35 barrels of barley valued at £30 and 340 barrels of oats valued at £238. There were 5 iron ploughs, 2 drill ploughs, 5 harrows, 3 rollers,

43 2 scufflers, 7 butts, 2 carts and 1 turnip cutter. Total valuation of stock and implements came to £3,284.10.0.129 In the 1870s the earl of Dartrey became a very successful breeder and exhibitor of shorthorn cattle.130 To promote good farming habits amongst his Monaghan tenantry he offered prizes annually for the upkeep of holdings and cottages. In the 1880s he began to promote ploughing matches upon his demesne where prizes were awarded for the best work done by any ploughman engaged on any farm in the counties of Monaghan, Cavan and Louth. Such ploughing events could attract crowds of up to 700 people.131 Regarding ploughing on the Dartrey farm and Vesey Dawson's (the second Earl of Dartrey) interest in it one former employee reminisced: Very heavy bullocks, away over a ton weight, were used in twos, instead of horses, to plough the lands of the estate. They were shod with half shoes by the estate's own blacksmith. His lordship used come out to watch them as they went about their day's work.132 The earl of Fitzwilliam's extensive farm in Wicklow was reclaimed from a bog at a cost of nearly £40,000. In 1881, Finlay Dun claimed that this showed what could be effected by 'the proper feeding both of plants and animals'.133 From his farm, Fitzwilliam annually distributed 'several score' of well bred shorthorn bulls, Leicester rams and Shropshires to his tenants in an attempt to improve their rent paying stock.134 For the years 1886-94, the aggregated value of stock at Dunmore, the demesne farm o f Kilkenny Castle, was £24,600.135 Lord Ormonde mainly bred Jersey and Aberdeen Angus cattle. In the mid-1880s there was an average of over 120 cattle, 380 sheep, 17 pigs and 8 horses for labour purposes at Dunmore.136 Aggregated cash receipts from farm sales for 1886-94 amounted to around £21,000.137 Dunmore farm also supplied the castle at Kilkenny with produce to the value of up to £400 per annum138 (see table 2.5).

44 At Carton, the valuation of stock on the demesne farm in 1893 was £2,400. Cattle accounted for £540 of this, sheep for £550 while the remainder was horses and pigs.139 At Headfort the value of farm stock in 1898 was much less than at Carton or Dunmore - £700. However, cash sales per year were greater than at Dunmore. From 1898 to 1903 demesne farm receipts totalled almost £18,000, an average of £3,000 per annum.140 Produce such as butter, milk and eggs, if not used on the estate or sent to the London house, were sold directly to the public and the servants.141 Similarly, Lord Clonbrock received a total of £37,300 from farm sales for the years 1880-1900 inclusive, an average of almost £1,800 per annum, and he was buying in up to 100 bullocks per year.142 Again, the big house was, in effect, the farm's best customer. In one month in 1884, for example, it provided 488 gallons of milk, 110 pounds of butter, 20 pints of cream, 19 dozen eggs, 8 turkeys, 3 geese, 25 fowl, 65 sheep and 1 pig to Clonbrock.143 While the decline of the big house was initiated by the decline in rental income of Irish landlords from the late-1870s, their diversification into farming became significant. As we shall see, despite the introduction of the Land Acts from 1881 to 1909, the landowners from the sample did not sell all of their estates. Instead they retained enough untenanted land to continue farming as a viable commercial enterprise having paid off their debts with whatever capital they secured from land sales and invested the remainder. It was only when the compulsory nature of the Free State Land Acts brought retained land below a viable level that the sale of the big houses in the sample began in earnest post- 1930 or so.

45 Chapter 3

Landlords and their families I: Opportunities and careers, 1850-1914 i. Marriage patterns Landlords as a social group have received veiy little attention from historians. As stated in the introduction to this work J.S. Donnelly jnr. and Samuel Clarke in an historiographical essay published in 1983 entitled 'The unreaped harvest' posed a number of questions regarding the landed class. They are questions which have not since been fully addressed. Who did proprietors or their children marry? Did the peerage intermarry with the ordinary gentry? Where were landowners and their families educated? What occupations were available to younger sons? The aim of this chapter is to take a look at such questions and to attempt to answer them with reference to the 100 families in the sample. By the 1870s, the landed class had become socially exclusive. Part of the reason for this was that landlords had created socially exclusive entertainments where they and their families were exposed only to members of their own class. Dinner parties, county balls, shooting and hunting parties were confined to landlords and their families. To stay in a big house as a guest or to partake in a round of country house visits, one had invariably to be of the landed class. For smaller landowners who did not venture outside their county, the social arena for meeting potential spouses was therefore largely confined to the entertainment events held within the confines of the big house or its demesne. Thus, Edith Somerville once wrote of her class: Each estate was a kingdom, and, in the impossibility of locomotion, each neighbouring potentate acquired a relative importance quite out of proportion to his merits, for to love your neighbour - or, at all events to marry her - was almost inevitable when matches were a matter of mileage, and marriages might have been said to have been made by the map.' TMeighbour' here can, of course, be taken to mean fellow member of the landed class for in choosing spouses the landlords and members of their families

47 generally refused to cross class boundaries. While this obviously limited their choice of partners, it was necessary to maintain status. Somerville's assertion may very well have been based on marital patterns in her own locality o f Castletownshend in Cork where, as L.P. Curtis has found, many of the same county families intermarried for two or three generations in succession. The Somervilles, Beechams, Chavasses and Townsends rarely ventured outside this circle of families and all lived within a ten mile radius of one another.2 But larger landowners and their families did travel much further afield in search of suitable partners. As the nineteenth century had progressed and transportation had improved, larger landowners moved out from the country at certain times of the year for social events in Dublin or London. The London season attracted the wealthiest Irish landlords and their families. During the Victorian period it became 'the mecca for matchmaking'.3 Shane Leslie wrote that from his grandfather's point of view 'four daughters required a London springboard' and therefore it was necessary to purchase the lease of Stratford House.4 At least three times a year, the Leslie family travelled to London 'with squads of servants, male and female'.5 Other large landowning families such as the Howards, Ormondes, Powerscourts, Listowels, Croftons and Conynghams did likewise.6 Through social events such as the London season and through participation in the affairs of Britain as politicians or officers in the army or navy, Irish landlords and their families became exposed to a wider circle of socially suitable partners. But while geographical barriers may have been broken down during the Victorian period, social barriers remained. For analysis purposes, the 100 houses were divided into those belonging to the peerage7 and those of the untitled gentry. Taking as the starting point the proprietor of each of the houses in the sample in 1850 there was a total of 188 peers from that year to 1914. Twenty-nine of these died unmarried. Among the

48 other 159, there was a total of 162 marriages (see table 3.1). While over 50 per cent of these peers married daughters of peers, there seems to have been a marked tendency amongst those of the sample to marry into peerage families resident England or Scotland rather than in Ireland. Seventy-one married into peerage families resident in England or Scotland compared to twenty-four into peerage families resident in Ireland. This pattern was most discernible in the case of the more powerful peers such as the dukes of Leinster. Augustus Fitzgerald, third Duke of Leinster, married a daughter of the third earl of Harrington in 1818. Charles Fitzgerald, the fourth duke, married a daughter of the Duke of Sutherland in 1847, while Gerald Fitzgerald, the fifth duke, married a daughter of the first Earl of Feversham in 1884. Similarly, in 1824 Lord Francis Conyngham of Slane married Lady Jane Paget, daughter of the first marquis of Anglesey. In 1854, his son and heir married Lady Jane Stanhope, only surviving daughter of the earl of Harrington. There were marriages between neighbouring families which in this case is defined as those living in the same or neighbouring counties. In 1876, the fourth earl of Bandon married the Hon. Georgiana Evans Freke, only child of the seventh Baron Carbery. Back in 1816, Viscount Doneraile had married the daughter of the third earl o f Bandon. The Donerailes, Bandons and Frekes were all Cork neighbours. But such marriages were more socially important than they were geographically determined. Over 31 per cent of peers married into either Irish or English untitled landowning families, or married daughters of clergymen or of army officers. It should be kept in mind that the army officers and clergymen in such cases were themselves invariably younger sons of landlords. They shared the same culture as landlords and were socially acceptable. Furthermore the untitled families which peers married into were predominantly those of large landowners. In 1874, for example, Thomas McClintock Bunbury, fourth Baron Rathdonnell, married a daughter of Henry Bruen of Oak Park. Bruen owned 24,400 acres.

49 There were few during the years from 1850 to 1914 with the courage of Geoffrey Taylour, the fourth Marquis of Headfort, who, in 1901, married the reputedly beautiful Rose Boote. Rose was a gaiety girl belonging to a music hall troupe of dancers. As a consequence of his marriage to her, Lord Headfort had to resign his commission in the Irish Guards.8 There were a few other marital unions which fell into the 'other' category. In 1829, Patrick Bel lew, first Baron Rathdonnell, married a daughter of Don Jose Maria de Mendoza Y Rios of Seville. In 1890, the fourteenth Lord Louth married Eugenie Bellairs. Her father was a British vice consul at Biarritz. In 1884, Sir John Leslie of Glaslough married Leonie Jerome of New York who was sister of Lord Randolph Churchill's wife, Jennie. The marriage patterns of the younger sons and the daughters of peers in the sample show a similar inclination to stay within established class boundaries. Daughters of peers were much more likely to marry into the peerage than were younger sons. Almost 35 per cent of daughters from the sample married into the peerage compared to 22.5 per cent of younger sons (see table 3.2). Peers' daughters took with them dowries and social status. At the same time, daughters were aware that marriage to the heir of a landed estate was a much better prospect than marriage to a younger son because of the law of primogeniture. If they were to marry out of the peerage, marriage to an untitled heir was satisfactory recompense, particularly if he was a relatively large landowner. In 1867, Frances Forbes, daughter of the sixth earl of Granard, married Charles Doyne heir to the Wells estate in Wexford. In 1886, Alice Dillon, daughter of the third Baron Clonbrock, married her cousin Ambrose Congreve, heir to Mount Congreve in Waterford. Younger sons of landlords, as we shall see, had a number of occupational options open to them which allowed perpetuation of their social status. As so many o f them became officers o f the army or navy, or clergymen, it followed that many of them married daughters of men who themselves had

50 gone into the army or navy or church. Similarly, daughters who did not marry the heir to an estate more often than not found themselves married to an officer or a clergyman (see table 3.2). The choice of marriage partners amongst daughters of the sample families is perhaps best illustrated by reference to the eight daughters of the third and fourth Barons Ventry. Thomas De Moleyns, third baron, had four daughters. In 1844 Christabelle married Commander Charles Hawkey of the royal navy. Three years later, her sister, Rose, married into a neighbouring gentry family in Kerry, the Chutes of Chute Hall. In 1850, Eliza married the Rev. Henry Tombe, while some years later Helena married the Hon. Edward Saunderson of Castlesaunderson in Co. Cavan who was M.P. for that county and heir to the family estate. The third baron's successor, Dayrolles Blakeney De Moleyns also had four daughters. In 1882, his eldest, Frances, married the fourth Marquis Conyngham. In 1888, Mildred married the first Baron St. Audries. Hersey married the first marquis of Linlithgow while Maud married the first Baron Gretton. Findings were similar for untitled landowners. Again, social standing was a prerequisite for a suitable partner. Indeed, in 1833, George Moore of Moore Hall had written to his mother: 'I am determined to marry none of his majesty's subjects - whether professing the Catholic, Protestant or Jewish religion - without money....I am not likely to marry for love'.9 He eventually married Mary Blake, daughter of a neighbouring landlord in Co. Mayo. Firstly, in the case of heirs of untitled landowners, 42 per cent married into the Irish untitled gentry (see table 3.3). Large landowners, when they did not marry into peerage families, tended to marry daughters of large landowners. From around 1850 to 1914, there were four heirs to Oak Park in Co. Carlow. In 1822, Col. Henry Bruen married a daughter of Thomas Kavanagh of Borris in the same county. In 1854, his heir, Henry, married Mary Conolly of Castletown. In 1886, his heir married Agnes Mac Murrough Kavanagh, also of

51 Borris and a daughter of Arthur Mac Murrough Kavanagh. Finally, his heir married Gladys McClintock of Rathvinden house in Co. Carlow in 1913. Over 33 per cent of untitled landowners married into peerage families resident in Ireland or England or Scotland. Again, most were owners of relatively large estates who could hope to improve their social position and indeed their financial position by marrying a peer's daughter who would bring with her a handsome dowry. In 1867, Charles Mervyn Doyne of Wells in Wexford married Lady Frances Fitzwilliam, eldest daughter of the sixth Earl Fitzwilliam. In 1898, his heir, Robert, married Lady Mary Lascelles, daughter of the fourth earl of Harewood. Daughters of untitled Irish landowners do not seem to have been eagerly sought by peers and their sons as only twelve out of seventy-two daughters married into the peerage (see table 3.4). The proportion of younger sons who were upwardly mobile was even smaller, nine out of seventy-eight. Both younger sons and daughters were more likely to stay within the social confines of the untitled landowning class or to marry children of army officers or clergymen (see table 3.4). However, the overall number of marriages which took place between members of peers' families and sons and daughters of untitled landowners emphasises the fact that they all shared a common culture. They all owned landed estates substantial enough to be rented to tenants from which they subsequently drew the bulk of their incomes. In turn this landownership conferred upon landlords both social and political power. It enabled them to be the leisured elite with abundant time to entertain, hunt, race and tour. They engaged in government be it local or national, and they served their time in the army, often making a career of it. The church provided another outlet for younger sons, but trade and commerce was shunned. Thus the landed class remained a tightly knit, exclusive community in Ireland in the late nineteenth,

52 early twentieth centuries, a community which regenerated itself through marriage alliances. Where there was a propensity amongst peers to seek brides from other peers' families, or at least from families of large landowners, it was deemed imperative because the new bride had to be well versed in entertaining on a grand scale. Anita Leslie claimed that when the seventh Lord Londonderry

contemplated wedlock he had met only six or seven possible girls. Each...had been purposely placed next to him at dinner because they were by birth and upbringing qualified to entertain as a great political hostess.10 On the other hand as marriage was the only 'career' open to a landowner's daughter, females bom into the peerage may obviously have had a preference to marry a peer, although as the findings above suggest this was not always possible. Dowries were also a prime consideration, especially to the eldest son who had the extra responsibility of passing on the family's estate, big house and heirlooms intact to the next generation. And, indeed, in the case of the peerage marriage was regarded as being imperative in the preservation of title. Estates were kept intact by primogeniture. A strict settlement was drawn up on the eldest son's marriage or on him reaching his majority entailing the estate on the eldest grandson, (usually not yet bom), which made the heir merely tenant for life. Theoretically, this meant the heir's hands were tied regarding the sale of his property and to whom he could choose to bequeath it. In practice, however, such settlements were flexible enough to allow the owner limited rights to sell outlying properties or to mortgage or convey property to trustees. This was often necessary to meet obligations to younger sons and daughters or to pay off debts. The settlement always contained complex contingency plans should a grandson never be bom, giving priority to males over females, to direct rather than lateral descent or to ascent, and failing that the most recent branch of the family.

53 Thus when an heir to an estate got engaged to marry, negotiations were entered into by both families over the settlement. It was usually settled that a bride receive an annual allowance, known as pin money, while her husband was alive, and brought with her a dowry, which often alleviated a financial burden of the family she married into, or provided the basis for her jointure, the annual allowance allowed to widows. If the heir had not inherited before marriage an investment trust was set up to provide an annual income for himself and his wife until he did inherit. When, for example, Charles William Fitzgerald, marquis of Kildare, and heir to the duke of Leinster, married Lady Caroline, daughter of the duke of Sutherland, in 1847, the marriage settlement drawn up between both parties first of all specified the rental of the Leinster estates which then stood at around £24,000." The encumbrances on the various estates were then outlined. Part of the settlement pointed out that, 'it is proposed that Lady Caroline’s fortune should be paid to the duke whose intention is to discharge with it incumbrances affecting his estate'.12 There was also reference to sums to be invested, although not specified, which would 'secure to the marquis of Kildare during the joint lives of himself and the duke, £4,000 per annum payable quarterly'.13 There was provision for £600 per annum to Lady Caroline 'during the joint lives of herself and the marquis by way of pin money', £2,500 to her during the joint lives of herself and the duke if the marquis died in the lifetime of the duke, and £4,000 per annum by way of a jointure if Lady Caroline was to survive the marquis and the duke.14 Settlements were business based and as such took the form of business arrangements. This is exemplified in the case of the marriage of Ambrose Congreve and the Hon. Alice Dillon in the mid-1860s. Edward Roper, solicitor, representing Lord Clonbrock, the bride-to-be's father, met with Mr. Medlicott, representing Ambrose Congreve, in the Sackville Street Club on 2 June 1866. A draft agreement was drawn up between the parties.15 A further series of

54 meetings and discussions took place at various venues including the Kildare Street Club, during which, amongst other things, Lord Clonbrock insisted on clarification regarding the title to the Congreve estates.16 The final settlement was drawn up on 20 July 1866. This was not the first marital arrangement between these two families. Back in 1827 John Congreve had married the Hon. Louisa Dillon eldest daughter o f Lord Clonbrock. By the last will of Lord Clonbrock, Louisa was entitled to £10,000 for her marriage portion which was handed over to John Congreve 'to be applied in the payment of certain debts affecting the said John Congreve, and the residue thereof, if any, for his own use'.17 In return Congreve made provision for the securing of an annuity of £400 'for the separate use of said Louisa Dillon as and by way of pin money' and a 'competent jointure' in the event that she should survive him. He conveyed by indenture lands in Waterford county and city, with all their rents and profits, to the earl of Norbury and John Power who acted as trustees.18 This was to ensure a £1,000 jointure for Louisa. John Congreve, however, was soon to realise that the assets left by his own father to cover the dowry of his sister Ellen were not sufficient to meet the £4,000. She had to accept £2,500 instead.19 The roles of women in big houses in the nineteenth century may have been limited - they rarely inherited estates, they had no political influence in the sense that they could not vote nor enter parliament, they were confined to the role of mistress of the household and maidservants or hostess and occasionally philanthropist - but marriage settlements meant they enjoyed much greater liberty and equality than wives in the classes below them. The marriage settlement guaranteed them separate income and as in the case of the like of Lady Meath of Kilruddery gave them the wealth to enjoy greater freedom and follow their own interests.

55 \

ii Education The education of a landlord's children began in the big house where a schoolroom was often set aside for tuition. In Dartrey, the schoolroom was situated on the bedroom corridor. When its contents were sold in 1937, it contained amongst its furnishings an Italian walnut bureau bookcase, a child's pitch pine desk and chair, a schoolroom table, a Georgian bookcase and a number of tables and chairs of various design.20 The first agents of education at home, excluding parents, were nannies and governesses. Governesses were usually imported from England or the continent. Of the twelve returned for the sample houses in the 1911 census, nine were English. A French governess was employed at Shelton, a Dutch governess at Mote Park, and a Scottish governess at Lisadell. While young girls remained at home under the tuition of successive governesses, boys usually went on to public school. However, the fact that information could not be located on the education of some of the sample owners (see tables 3.5 and 3.6) suggests they may also have remained at home under private tuition. The early life of Lord Castletown was typical of many peers. Bom in London in 1849, he went to private school near Ashridge in 1857.21 After leaving, he was sent to Dresden where his family secured a private tutor to teach him German.22 In 1861 he entered Eton. Again after leaving Eton he was in the hands of tutors and travelled over much of Europe visiting places such as Vienna, Berlin, Budapest, Ratisbon, Switzerland and the Tyrol.23 In 1868, he entered Oxford from where he graduated with a degree in law and modem history. He then went on to join the Life Guards to serve a military apprenticeship before taking over the running of the family estate.24 In his unpublished memoirs, Sir Shane Leslie paints an altogether unflattering picture o f life at Eton. As a lower boy he and his room-mates occupied 'an old battered warren betwixt the chapel cemetery and Wise's horse

56 yard....The food was wretched and tasteless....Those who had cash spent it on food'.23 Discipline, in his opinion, was also harsh. He wrote: 'As for the thrashings which tyrannised rather than disciplined our house, they were excessive'.26 The standard of teaching was appalling and bullying was endemic. He could not understand the stories of old Etonians 'shedding tears on the day they left Eton. No member of our house ever wept on the day of liberty'.27 Yet, it was to English public schools that the majority of Irish landlords aspired to send their sons. Of the fifty-five peers who owned the sample houses in 1879, information on the public schools attended by fifty-four of them was found. Forty-five attended Eton (see table 3.5). Only four went to Harrow, the other leading British public school of the age. These were Lords Ormonde, Carrick, Digby, and Clanricarde. Lord Fingall went to Prior Park. Lord Longford went to Winchester while Lord De Freyne went to Downside. The fourth earl of Dunraven went to a Dublin school, St. Columba's, often called 'the Eton of Ireland'.28 His grandfather, the second Earl of Dunraven, Windham Henry Quin, and William Mansell, later Lord Emly, had been prominent founders of St. Columba's college in 1841.29 It was a 'proselytising enterprise' which 'strove to revive the ancient, and in some respects independent, Irish church', its object 'to provide Ireland with an Irish speaking ministry'.30 According to the memoirs of the fourth earl of Dunraven the list of co-operators, donors and subscribers contained the names of apparently all the peers and gentry of Ireland.31 Dunraven was, therefore, one of the few peers who had been denied an English public school education. His feelings on having lost out on an Etonian or Harrovian education reflect what the landlord class in general perceived to be the benefits of public school education despite its drawbacks. Dunraven later wrote: 'I lost - and it is a great loss - the education, the discipline and the wholesome training of Eton, or any other great public school, and the intimate friendships that spring from public school life.'32

57 As Dunraven's statement suggests, public schools were seen to be places for building character. Bullying and harsh discipline were therefore dismissed as prerequisites in the necessary inculcation of what Jessica Gerard terms the 'public school ethos of independence, stoicism, courage, honour, loyalty and manliness'.33 They were also places where suitable contacts were made that would be beneficial in later life, and where social status was perpetuated. The same could be said to be true of the educational ideals of the untitled landowners from the case study, particularly the larger landowners. Of the twenty upon whom information was found, sixteen attended either Eton or Harrow. Most of these were from the large landowner class including, for example, Saunderson of Castlesaunderson, Madden of Hilton, Wynne of Hazlewood, Burton of Burton Hall, Duckett of Duckett's Grove, Congreve of Mount Congreve and Cooper of Markree. Beaumont-Nesbitt of Tubberdaly in King's Co. attended Winchester; Henry Bruen attended Broadfield; Edward Dorman-Smith of Bellamont attended Usher, while R.C. Bowen attended St. Columba's (see Table 3.6). According to Shane Leslie, there was no clearly established pattern amongst Irish families regarding the schools or universities attended by their sons. It did not necessarily follow that because an heir to an estate attended Eton or Harrow that his sons would do likewise. Leslie wrote: Irish families did not suffer from the prejudice which animated the English and often divided their sons between the rival schools. My father was the Etonian son of a Harrovian and sent three sons to Eton. Hemy Leslie, his cousin, and Frank, his son, attended Harrow.34 Going through various family histories from around 1850 to 1914, enough examples were found to give some support to Leslie's claim. John Madden of Hilton Park, for example, attended Harrow. His heir and namesake attended Eton. The eldest son of Arthur Mac Murrough Kavanagh attended Eton and Oxford. The only other of his four sons on whom information is available,

58 Charles, attended Harrow and Sandhurst. Henry Bruen attended Broadfield. His eldest son, also Henry, attended Harrow and R.M.A. Woolwich. In turn, his eldest son attended Eton. After public school few eldest sons seem to have gone on to university. Of the fifty-five peers, more than one third continued their academic education. Twelve went on to Oxford, seven to Cambridge and two to Trinity College, Dublin. The Trinity graduates were Lords Famham of Cavan and Mahon of Castlegar. Nineteen of the untitled owners went on to university. Again, Oxford, attended by eight of them, was to the fore. Five went to T.C.D. and four went to Cambridge. Heirs were more likely to pursue a military career in the intervening period between leaving public school and inheriting the family estate. Indeed, many continued to be militarily active even after they had inherited. A military career was seen as the natural extension of a landlord's perceived duty to lead. It was something they became aware of at an early age. In his memoirs Lord Castletown claimed: I remember becoming imbued with military ardour at an early age. Having found an old pistol and loaded it - luckily with powder only - 1 constituted myself cavalry...35 Of the 100 landlords in 1879, seventy-one were found to have had military careers (see table 3.8). Of these, two were lieutenant-generals, sixteen were colonels, nineteen were lieutenant-colonels, nine were majors, twelve were captains and eighteen were lieutenants. The most popular regiment was the Life Guards in which ten were officers. Five were officers in the Coldstream Guards, and four were officers in the Royal Irish Fusiliers, Royal Irish Regiment and the Hussars. The rest were officers in a wide variety of regiments including, for example, the Connaught Rangers, Grenadier Guards, Inniskilling Dragoons, Royal Munster Fusiliers and the Scots Guards. The remaining twenty-nine included the likes of J.R. Garstin of Braganstown whose lifestyle was more academically orientated, the misses

59 Butler of Castlecrine to whom it doesn't apply, and Arthur Mac Murrough Kavanagh who, having been bom limbless, was excluded from the pursuit of a military career.Of the twenty-nine R.C. Bowen was a captain in the Cork militia, Lord Robert Carew a colonel in the Wexford militia and Valentine Lawless, Lord Cloncurry, was a major in the Kildare militia. Military tradition was handed down to heirs as it was to younger sons. George Conyngham, third Marquis Conyngham, for instance, was a lieutenant- general in the Life Guards. The fourth marquis was a lieutenant in the Scots Guards, the fifth marquis a lieutenant in the Southern Irish Horse and the sixth marquis a lieutenant in the Royal Irish Fusiliers. The fourth Marquis of Sligo, John Browne, was in the royal navy. A descendant wrote of the fifth Marquis, Henry Browne that 'the Indian Mutiny and the viceroys were probably more real to him than the Irish famine and the Land League'.36 His successor, George Browne was a captain in the 12th Bengal Cavalry in the 1870s and 'having no money he lived on his pay which in those days was minuscule'.37 He fought in the second Afghan war of 1878, being A.D.C. to Lord Roberts and taking part in the famous march from Kabul to Kandahar. The eight Marquis, Arthur Browne K.B.E., did not succeed until 1941, by which time he was aged seventy-four. He had been a colonel in the Royal Munster Fusiliers. He served on the North West frontier and the Transvaal, later becoming a member of the war office staff 1914-9.3S Many more of the owners of the 100 houses saw active service before World War I. James Maxwell, ninth Baron Famham, had served in the Crimea where he had been severely wounded. George Bellew of Barmeath, a major in the Tenth Hussars, served in the Afghan war 1878-9, on the Nile Expedition 1884-5, South Africa 1900-1 and was also to serve for the duration of World War I. The fifth earl of Dunraven, the fourth earl of Listowel, the fifth baron Ventry, the eleventh earl of Fingall, Lord Bernard Fitzpatrick, and Sir John Leslie of Glaslough all saw active service in the Boer War. William Pakenham,

60 fourth Earl of Longford, served in the Crimea and during the India mutiny. He was adjutant general of forces in Turkey in 1855, deputy adjutant general to forces in India 1858-66 and under-secretary of state for war 1867. iii Occupations chosen by younger sons While Shane Leslie and his younger brother, Norman, both attended Eton, they separated afterwards, Shane going on to Cambridge, Norman to Sandhurst. Norman was taking one of the options available to landlords' younger sons that would enable him to perpetuate his social position - a commission in the regular army. A career in the army or navy, public service or church were the main occupational options available to younger sons denied ownership of the estate by primogeniture. Out of a total of 163 younger sons from the sample on whom information was available, almost 75 per cent chose an army or naval career. 6 per cent went into the church. The remaining 19 per cent went into public service, law, medicine or land agency (see table 3.7). By the nineteenth century, Irish landlords had become an integral part of the much broader British landed class, evidence of which has already been seen in marriage arrangements and the military careers of heirs. They essentially became part of what David Cannadine terms a 'supra-national class'.39 The concentration of wealth in landlords' hands not only made them the social elite, but the political elite as well. As national government was dominated by landlords, it became inevitable that the administration of the state would follow. This therefore opened up avenues of occupation to younger sons to enable them to consolidate their social positions. (Indeed, the same could equally be said to apply to eldest sons who sought diversions while they waited to inherit their fathers' estates, or who wished to remain politically active after they had inherited.)

61 The new opportunities available in the nineteenth century were a direct consequence of the expansion of state bureaucracy from the end of the eighteenth century. From 1784 to 1794, the Home Office was established, the Board of Trade revived and the Secretaryship of War resurrected. From 1815 to 1827, Lord Bathurst expanded the Colonial Office as seventeen new colonies had to be administered.40 More importantly from the point of view of the younger sons from the sample, the expansion of the British empire meant more army and navy officers were required than ever before to serve all over the world. From 1792 to 1826, the number of British naval officers had risen from 1,800 to 8,400, while during much the same period the number of army officers rose from 2,000 to 19,000.41 By the 1870s, the vast majority of British army officers were still recruited from the landlord class.42 At least part of the reason for this was that a private income was a pre-condition for a military career. Patronage was imperative when seeking promotion. In July 1854, Wensley Bond of Farragh in Co. Longford wrote that he was 'anxiously expecting' a letter from his father regarding the £250 he required to purchase a lieutenancy. He claimed: ’If...I do not purchase, Barwell, the ensign below me, will purchase over me’.43 in November 1854, Bond arrived in the Crimea. Again, he was forced to call upon his father for financial help. He wrote: 'I have £23 left. Please send me a few pounds as 1 can buy plenty to eat and drink at Balaclava'.44 In 1870, entrance to Woolwich and Sandhurst became based on a competitive examination held under the auspices of the civil service. However, in the short term, the cost of living in the army continued to limit the officer class to the well-to-do who were effectively landlords and their sons. Cannadine points out that as late as the 1900s, it cost in the region of £1,000 to purchase the uniform and horses necessary to join a cavalry regiment and the cost of living could be as high as £700 a year in excess of salary.45

62 During the first half of the nineteenth century, younger sons of Irish landlords aided by the patronage of their fathers or British relatives and connections filled vacancies in the service of the state from commissions in the army or navy to diplomatic posts abroad. During the period under study, their descendants did likewise. The fourth marquis of Waterford who died in 1861 had five sons. In 1859, his second son, Charles, joined the royal navy. By 1897 he was a rear admiral and by 1906 an admiral. In the interim, he served as commander of the naval brigade in the Sudan with the Nile expedition for the relief of General Gordon, 1884-5. He was naval A.D.C. to the prince of Wales 1875-6 and Queen Victoria 1897. He was also commander in chief of the Mediterranean fleet 1905-07 and the Channel fleet 1907-09. His younger brother William was awarded the Victoria cross. He served as a colonel with the 9th Lancers and was military-secretary to the governor of India 1881-94. The third son, Marcus, was a lieutenant in the 7th Lancers and spent over thirty years as manager of thoroughbred stud and race horses to King Edward VII and King George V between 1890 and 1922. The youngest son, Delaval, was a lieutenant in the Leicestershire regiment. William Charles Fitzwilliam, son of the sixth earl of Fitzwilliam, was governor-general of India from 1880 to 1882. Herbert Browne, son of the fifth marquis of Sligo was a political officer in Lushoi where he was assassinated in 1890. Hamilton Cuffe, the second son of the third earl of Desart, was solicitor to the treasury and queen's proctor from 1894 to 1909; director of public prosecutions 1894-1908; and British plenipotentiary at the international naval conference in London, 1908-09. Walter Hely-Hutchinson, son of the fourth earl of Donoughmore, was governor of Malta 1884-89; governor and commander in chief of the Windward islands 1889-93, Natal and Zululand 1893-1901, and the Cape of Good Hope 1901-10. Richard, son of the ninth earl of Fingall, was ambassador to Vienna from 1900 to 1905.

63 The nineteenth century also saw an increasing number of younger sons of Irish landlords entering the church, a trend which was similar to Britain as a whole.46 Younger sons from the sample families who were clergymen included James Butler, second son of the fourth marquis of Ormonde. He was rector of Ulcombe in Maidstone and married the only daughter of Rev. Cosmo Gordon. The Rev. James Mahon was a son of Sir William Mahon, the fourth baronet. Rev. Benjamin Burton was the second son of William Burton of Burton Hall. The most interesting example found concerned two sons of the third Lord Talbot De Malahide. Rev. Edward was vicar of Evercreech-cum-Chesterblade in Somerset. His older brother, Monsignor George, was canon of St. Peter's in Rome and chamberlain to Pope Pius IX. Of the other occupations, a total of ten younger sons were barristers and one was a land agent. The latter was Henry Bruen's son, Arthur, who was a land agent in Ireland from 1901 to 1924. In the nineteenth century the day to day running of an Irish estate was generally in the hands of a land agent who enjoyed a large measure of autonomy. He was not only responsible for the collection of rents, supervision of the estate's finances, monitoring of improvements and the drawing up of landlord-tenant agreements, he also substituted for an absent landlord as resident magistrate or grand juror. William Townsend, an experienced and influential writer on Irish agriculture condemned the idea o f 'keeping as an agent one of the lower orders, one of the people's selves'. He propounded that such people were 'incapable of improving the farms of farmers' as they were 'generally both corrupt and oppressive'.47 Consequently by the mid-nineteenth century land agents were drawn predominantly either from the landlord's own family, members of other landlord families or from the legal professions.48 The findings of the sample do not adequately represent this. But there is the possibility that had more information been available on other younger sons, it would have been found that many more pursued a career as a land agent. If

64 we take a look at the agents who gave evidence to the Bessborough Commission we see, for example, that James Hamilton of Ballintra in Donegal had been agent for his father as well as for Thomas Conolly of Castletown who had substantial estates in that county.49 The O'Donovan was agent for his brother and his uncle, William Bence-Jones.50 F.A.J. Chichester was agent for his brother, Lord Templetown.51 Foster V. Fitzgerald was agent on his family's estates in Clare, Kerry and Limerick.52 Like the army and the church, a land agentship offered moderate financial rewards and a relative degree of status, enough to entice younger sons into the profession who sought a way to perpetuate their social position. No sons from the 100 sample houses were listed as being R.I.C. officers. Yet, Dr. Brian Griffin has found that the officers of the force were also drawn from the landed class, particularly from the lower end.53 In 1861 The Daily Express had claimed that 'very many of the officers of the Irish Constabulary are connected not only with the first families in the country, but some with nobility'.54 In 1888, an M.P. referred to the R.I.C. as 'a system of outdoor relief for the younger sons of the landlords of the country'.55 Griffin's evidence concurs with an article in the Freeman's Journal some thirty years earlier which generalised that cadet officers were 'gentlemen of good families, birth and education, but, who, being for the most part without private means, could not support themselves if appointed to the army'.56 Despite their lowly social backgrounds, R.I.C. officers seem always to have been welcome at big house functions, race meets, hunts and other social occasions for their background meant they shared, along with the army officers and clergymen, the same culture as the big house owners.

65 Chapter 4

Landlords and their families II: Social lives and leisure pursuits, 1850-1914 i Big house entertainment In the years before socio-political change imposed restrictions on the social lives of landlords and before economic necessity curtailed expenditure, the big houses of Ireland were central to entertainment. With their multitude of reception rooms and guest bedrooms, they were designed for hospitality. Elizabeth Bowen claimed that big houses 'were planned for spacious living - for hospitality above all....The idea that begot them was a purely social one'.1 She went on: 'The getting together of people was meant to be at once a high pleasure and a willing discipline....The big or big seeming rooms in the big house [were] meant for just such pleasures of intercourse'.2 T.R.R. Henn, formerly of Paradise in Co. Clare, described a typical big house as 'a centre of hospitality, of country life and society, apt to breed a passionate attachment'.3 In the 1930s, a former resident magistrate reminisced on the days that he spent at Lord Kenmare's home in Killamey with 'its hospitable doors always open and its owners always ready to welcome their numerous and devoted friends1.4 He wrote: With its lovely gardens and the sort of subtle influence it exerted on the whole neighbourhood [it] was so to speak, the centre of things. Thither came from time to time much that was best in Irish and English life, soldiers, statesmen, artists.... There were boats on the lake for excursions or fishing, horses in the stable to ride or drive, shooting in the season, or fishing according to the taste of the sportsmen.5 But while big house hospitality was generous and lavish, it was restricted to landlords and those who shared their culture. In choosing their guests, landlords were as particular as they were in choosing spouses. A list of people to be invited to balls and social functions at Kilkenny Castle around the turn of the century, for example, reads like a who's who of Irish landlords. Of the county names, at least sixty-two were landlords. All forty-two names listed for the neighbouring counties were landlords. There

67 were twenty-four peers from Kilkenny and the country as a whole. A further thirty-four were clergymen and twenty-seven were army officers. Those from the sample group who appeared on this list included the earl of Carrick, Lord Castletown, the earl of Desart, Kavanagh of Borris, Langrishe of Knocktopher, Bruen of Oak Park, Coote of Ballyfin, Congreve of Mount Congreve and De La Poer of Gurteen.6 Within this directory, there are three loose sheets of paper which constitute a list of people to be invited to a 'house party' held in honour of the duke and duchess of York, later George V and Queen Mary, who stayed at the castle for five nights in 1899. Altogether over 160 invitations were sent out. 'Honoured guests' included Lord and Lady Roberts, Lord and Lady De Vesci, Lady Dugdale and Lord Avon. Eighteen of the invitations were to peers and their families including from the sample, the Carricks, Castletowns, and Desarts. Sixty were sent to other landlords including from the sample the Ducketts, Kavanaghs, Bruens, Congreves and De La Poers. The list also included the names of twenty-four army officers. Separate invitations were sent to the officers of the King's Royal Rifles and the fifth battalion of the Royal Irish Regiment and to ten district inspectors of the R.I.C. Invitations were also sent to twenty-six clergymen including the bishop of Ossory and his wife, and the dean and archdeacon of Ossory. The list also included the names of three Nationalist M.P.s - McDermott, Morris and O'Brien. However, it was not ascertained if they actually attended.7 The diaries of Lady Alice Howard of Shelton also illustrate the narrow social circles in which landlords and their families moved and how they amused themselves. In January 1874, Lady Alice went to a big house ball, danced until 6 a.m. and was unable to get up for breakfast until noon the next day.8 During that month, her evenings were taken up by theatricals and concerts and 'the conjuring tricks of Col. Crichton'. For afternoon tea she had visited neighbouring houses such as Powerscourt, Glenart and Kilruddery.9 As spring approached, walks became her favourite form of afternoon activity and she was

68 often accompanied by the likes of Lord and Lady Listowel, the La Touches of Harristown, Lord and Lady Powerscourt, Lady Edith Scott and Col. Foster.10 She returned the visits of her friends spending a week, for example, in Lord Listowel's residence at Convamore at the end of March and beginning of April 1874, where she enjoyed the games of tennis and billiards.11 Later in the year, she played cricket at Avondale, about which she wrote: 'It was very pleasant - all the county was there - but we were nearly consumed by midgets.'12 Lady Crofton's diary entries show that her family spent much of their time in Lord Clonbrock's and vice-versa.13 Lord Cloncurry's diaries are full of references to his hunting exploits on estates and demesnes all over Ireland from neighbouring Straffan in Kildare to Castle Bernard in Cork.14 Elizabeth Bowen wrote that at Mitchelstown Castle 'there used to be tennis tournaments on the King's-Square lawns, brightened by cavalry officers from Kilworth and the Kingston's young visitors'.15 For her, daytime pleasures during the summer included garden and croquet parties, and cricket and archery matches, while during the winter the highlights were dinner parties, lunch gatherings and the Duhallow hunt meets. Her fellow participants were all from a limited social circle.16 Peers' homes, such as Headfort, extended hospitality all year round. Taking just four weeks in July and August of 1886, we see that from 11 to 17 July there was a total of twenty-one 'strangers' for dinner there; from 18 to 21 July, eleven strangers; from 25 to 31 July, sixteen strangers; and from 31 July to 3 August, five strangers. Most were landlords and members of their families. They included Lord and Lady Castletown, Lord Castleross, Lord Erne and his son, Col. Crichton, and Lady Virginia Landers. Quite a few were army officers such as General Frazer, Col. Campbell and Col. Rowley. From May 1887 to May 1888, a total of 278 guests were entertained at Headfort and again they seem all to have been landlords or clergymen and army officers.17 Dinner parties were the most usual form of big house entertainment either organised in their own right or after shoots, fox hunts and race meets. 69 During the Punchestown race meeting, for example, the big houses of Kildare and surrounding counties extended hospitality to landlords and their families who had to travel a distance. Dinner parties and accommodation were an integral part of this hospitality. For the meeting in April 1880 the Leinster Express listed sixteen houses from which approximately 400 guests left oh one day to attend Punchestown.18 The marquis and marchioness of Drogheda, the Royses of Wicklow, Lord and Lady Clonmell and the Fowlers of Meath had stayed at Killashee, home of the Moores. The earl of Bandon, the Headforts, Major Gregory of Coole had stayed at Straffan with the Bartons. The marquis and marchioness of Waterford and Lord Langford of Summerhill were amongst those who had stayed with Charles Bourke at Roseborough.19 Dinner was an important formal occasion at all times. Lady Londonderry once remarked: 'Breakfast and lunch are informal occasions, but dinner is a parade and you must not be late for it'.20 It was often a very elaborate affair providing a family with an opportunity to show off its collection of plate, be it silver or gold. An inventory of the family plate collection at Headfort castle in 1866 listed seventy-eight lots of silverw and ninety lots of plate. There were nineteen other lots of gold for the dining table including a five branched candelabrum and a jug with a coronet and crest on the front.21 The family plate collection at Kilkenny castle was even more impressive. There were over 1,000 individual pieces including over 100 gold dinner plates.22 Smaller landowning families also had their own collection of plate, though not as extravagant or valuable as that of the peerage. Annie Mac Manus, a servant who worked in Clohamon, home of the Kinahan family in Wexford, recalled two huge black chests of silver plate which the family used on special occasions.23 Indeed, Annie recalled once spending an entire afternoon building an imitation ski-slope of cotton wool in the middle of the dining table which was then decorated with figurines that Mrs. Kinahan had

70 gone especially to Paris to collect. Having gone to so much trouble, Annie was disappointed that the guests that evening 'ate so little'.24 Dinner was usually served at Clohamon and elsewhere between 7 p.m and 8 p.m. and could last up to four hours. Annie Mac Manus, who was later promoted to cook at Clohamon, could recall a typical dinner menu as consisting of celery soup, croutons and cream, followed by fillet of beef, cauliflower, broad beans, mushrooms, jacket potatoes and roast potatoes. A choice of desserts was usual such as butter scotch tart, meringue or apple charlotte and custard. Finally coffee was served before the women retired to the drawing room while the men stayed put drinking and smoking before later joining the ladies.25 Organised shoots were another popular form of big house entertainment. And almost invariably an expensive one. Game had to be reared on the demesne, gamekeepers had to be employed and a shooting party which could go on for a number of days meant a landlord had to extend his hospitality and provide guests with accommodation and meals. Because of this shooting parties were more the pastime of peers or large landowners. One of the keenest shots of his day was Valentine Lawless, fourth Baron Cloncurry. Cloncurry's diary entries for the 1880s are dominated by his hunting exploits and references to the management of his estate. It is clear from them that much emphasis was placed on the number of birds shot. At a shoot held at Glenart between November 9 and 12 1886, a total of 1,854 birds were shot. Below is a reproduction of the game card, found in Cloncurry's diary of 1886, which was returned by those who partook in this shoot. They included Prince Edward of Saxe Weimar, the marquis of Drogheda, earl of Bandon, earl of Carysfort, Viscount Powerscourt, Lord Inchiquin and Lord Cloncurry. Significantly all had titles.26

71 Date Pheasant Woodcock Hare Rabbit Total Nov. 9 186 25 1 51 263 Nov. 10 509 11 1 15 536 Nov. 11 741 23 - 14 778

Nov. 12 251 9 - 17 277 Totals 1,687 68 2 97 1,854

In a diary entry for 4 January 1887, Cloncurry expressed his admiration at Lord Ardilaun's account of a famous shoot at Muckross in 1863, at which 800 woodcock had been shot in eight days by only six guns, and at the duke of Abercom's claim that 12,644 woodcock had been shot at Baron's Court over a period of forty years. During 1897, Cloncurry himself had attended thirty-five shooting parties on estates including his own, Glenart, Lough Crew, Straffan, Moore Abbey, Ashford, Dromoland, and Castle Bernard. Again, these were all homes of fellow peers or in the case of Straffan large landowners. For Cloncurry, it could be said to have been a matter of'have gun, will travel'. Houses like Kilkenny Castle and Carton hosted more stately functions at various times. In 1904, a banquet was held in the picture gallery of Kilkenny Castle on the occasion of king Edward VII's visit there. This is how Molly Wills, wife of a local rector, described the evening's events: Our carriage was in a queue with a heap of others but they were so slow in moving that Mr. Power, Mr. Me Elroy and Percy [her husband] came to the window and advised us to walk through the courtyard which many others were doing and so save nearly twenty minutes. This we accordingly did and at last got into the outer hall where the ladies went to one room and the gentlemen did the same in another. We then met in a big square hall with a big marble affair like a square table in the middle on which I managed to get a seat, and the babel of voices for quarter of an hour or so was like nothing I ever heard. At last the word was given and we tramped up the big stairs to the picture gallery where each party was announced and was met and greeted by Lady Ormonde and her daughter.... It's veiy like a ballroom with a row of chairs down each side and a band playing half way up. We talked to our friends

72 and each other till everyone had arrived, and then there was a stir and everyone got in line three or four deep down the gallery on each side. The band played the National Anthem and the King and Queen entered and passed along between their subjects who humbly bowed as they passed, they doing likewise to both sides.... Then after a while their majesties passed on and out again just as they came in and we all began to make a move to get down to supper which was served downstairs.27 And there were other types of big house functions. Houses were used, for example, for wedding breakfasts. In the mid-1850s, Georgiana Sidney Bond of Farragh in Co. Longford got married to Captain Thomas Meredith owner of Cloonmahon in Co. Sligo. The reception was held at Farragh. Eighty people sat down for the wedding breakfast which was laid in the drawing room. The couple sat in the middle of a horse-shoe table in the bow window while the guests sat at three long tables. Outside on the lawn, music was provided by the band of the 7th Dragoon Guards.28 At a fancy dress ball in February 1881 organised by the Guinnesses and held in their Dublin residence, Lady Castletown 'was a very perfect Incroyable in long brown satin coat'. Lady Drogheda was old Mother Hubbard. Her husband was in cavalier dress. Lady Bandon went as Mary, Queen of Scots and Lady Leslie was dressed after the Gainsborough painting of Mrs. Graham.29 This fancy dress ball was held in the middle of the Dublin season which began around Christmas and ran until mid-March culminating with the St. Patrick's Ball. During these months many of the young debutantes were initiated into society. By the mid-nineteenth century more and more landlords' families were beginning to spend time in Dublin during the season. In the 1850s, Georgiana Bond's life at Farragh 'was punctuated by periodic family visits to Dublin where her parents would take a house and there would be rounds of social engagements interspersed with shopping and church going'.30 In the afternoon, Georgiana attended bazaars in Fishamble Street or went horse riding in the Phoenix Park. At soirees she sang Italian songs to her own accompaniment.31

73 For peers and larger landowners who could afford it, the London season was an extension of the Dublin season lasting from about May to the end of July. By the end of April 1874 Lady Alice Howard was preparing for the London season. On the boat she met with a number of other Irish families including the Guinnesses, Beresfords and the Powerscourts.32 During her three months in London, her mornings were taken up with breakfast at Princes, followed by walks in the park which, more often than not, she found 'very dull'. The monotony of them was broken only by visits to Buckingham Palace to watch polo matches. After lunch came the inevitable round of visits, very much on the same pattern as at home for she dined with Irish families such as the Listowels, Croftons, Conynghams, Clancartys, Annesleys and Dawsons. Shane Leslie recalled the London of the 1890s as a city 'of great palaces'.33 Of the homes he frequented he was particularly impressed by Landsdowne House.34 In the late-1890s, he was taken to his first London garden party at Holland House, where the grounds were set out in marquees and bunting, where he met many of the notables of British society and 'even more exciting the powdered flunkey who gave us ices'.33 ii Foxhunting Leslie claimed that 'country life was entirely organised to give nobility and gentry and demi-gentry a good time'.36 Over dinner 'conversation naturally was sporty and social' and guests such as the duke of Connaught who frequented Glaslough towards the end of the nineteenth century 'recounted tales of their hunting exploits to all present'.37 A century before, at the high point of landlord enterprise in Ireland from around the 1790s to the 1820s, fox hunting developed on a grand scale. Prior to this several private packs of hounds belonging to landlords had hunted large parts of the country. Thomas Conolly of Castletown had a well established pack of hounds as early as 1764.38 His breeding was noted by other landlords. In 1777, Lord Famham wrote to Conolly:

74 I will send for two or three cast staunch foxhounds to attack the martens; they have increased so that 1 cannot have a pheasant or any other sort of game in my woods. If you can spare them, I wish you would write soon that I may lose no time in sending for them.39 In Kilkenny, the earl of Carrick hunted hares, deer and foxes in the woodlands of the county with his own pack in the latter decades of the eighteenth centuiy.40 In Limerick at this time, 'almost all the larger gentry owned a pack of some kind with which they would hunt either stag, fox or hare'.41 From the early nineteenth century onwards landlords began to establish regional hunts on a more organised basis. By the 1800s, the earl of Portarlington had established the Emo hunt while around the same time the Donerailes in Cork were influential in establishing the Duhallow hunt.42 A short time later, a Cork landowner, John Beamish, established the Carbery hunt. He was its first Master of Foxhounds.43 Already dominant in counties as landowners and politicians, the new title of Master of Foxhounds further enhanced the social position of landlords such as Beamish, or Lord Doneraile who was Master of Foxhounds with the Duhallows from 1854 to 1863. Around 1850, Earl Fitzwilliam established the Coollattin hunt in Wicklow, much the same time as Richard Levinge of Knockdrin set up an organised hunt club in Westmeath.44 This was at great expense to themselves. Early organisation involved not only the building of kennels but the construction of gorses and earths to facilitate the breeding of foxes. To this end John Power, one of the foremost co-ordinators of foxhunting in Ireland at the end of the eighteenth century, built kennels at Kilfane and leased Grennan woods as a nursery for foxes.45 By 1815 Power was accepting subscriptions for the upkeep of his kennels and hounds from other landlords in the county. In that year, he received almost £600.46 This appears to be the average sum which he received from then on per year. However, as one commentator pointed out: 'Considering the

75 enormous country he hunted, the many coverts and earths which he made, and the many other contingent demands on him', it 'was not much'.47 But it did give an organisational impetus to the Kilkenny hunt. By 1845, there were approximately 200 horses belonging to visitors stabled in the area.48 By the 1860s, the early practice of leaving eveiything to the master was replaced by a system whereby the hunt district was divided into certain regions and hunt members made contributions towards all charges for kennels, hounds coverts and damages in their designated area. This new type arrangement was seen to be 'fairer to the Master as well as to the farmers and covert keepers'.49 From the outset hunt clubs were established and administered by landlords. Surviving records of the various hunts are littered with references to the involvement of the 100 families in the sample. In the mid-nineteenth century, for example, Lord Waterford built a Turkish bath for his hunters as a means for getting them into training without the necessity of galloping.50 He was later to be killed in a hunting accident in 1859 while chasing a fox in Bessborough demesne in Co. Kilkenny.51 Thomas Conolly of Castletown, who hunted all over Leinster and parts of Munster, was described as 'a bruising rider' by a member of the Kilkenny hunt.52 Lord James Butler of Kilkenny Castle also rode with the Kilkenny hunt. He was described as 'a welter' weighing in at almost eighteen stone.53 A poem entitled 'The Kilkenny hunt in 1845' by R. Frankland said of him: Featherweights to the front ranks relinquish your claims, When e'er in the field you encounter Lord James.54 The poet claimed of the earl of Desart: See Desart in front, for the fear of a purl or the pace of the hounds never stopped the good earl.55 And he claimed of John De La Poer: Of all the hard riders that ever were seen I never met any like Johnny Gurteen.56 Landlords did not confine their hunting exploits to their native counties. Many preferred to travel. These included John Congreve of Mount Congreve in

76 Waterford, Lord Howth from Dublin and Lord Drogheda from Kildare who hunted regularly with the Kilkenny hunt.57 Lord Castletown hunted with the Duhallow, Waterford and Kilkenny packs, but mainly confined himself to hunting with his own pack, the Queen's County. For him: 'Fox hunting was a great pleasure...especially in Ireland, where good sport was nearly always obtainable at a moderate cost, and foxes as a rule were plentiful'.58 In Limerick, the Knight of Glin was said to be 'a constant man with the hounds and goes long distances to meet them. He has an excellent covert at Glin castle both for foxes and woodcocks, and supports the hunt most liberally'.59 But landlords did not monopolise the composition of the actual fields. As with other aspects of their social lives, they were joined by army officers and clergymen. And as the nineteenth century drew to a close, they were joined by an increasing number of large farmers. Writing sometime in the early 1920s, Col. Wyndham Quin claimed that army officers 'have ever been supporters of fox hunting in Ireland both financially and in the field'.60 At a Limerick hunt club meeting in January 1898, it was decided that 'Col. Spyer and the officers of the first battalion Royal Irish Regiment, are hereby elected honorary members...in recognition of the great support given to the hunt by the regiment while stationed in Limerick'.61 A list of subscribers to the Limerick hunt dated 1 May 1879 contains 112 names.62 These included Lords Ashtown and Dunraven from the sample. There were eight other peers - Lords Clarina, Emly, Fermoy, Guillamore and Massy, Devon, Limerick and Sandwich. A total of sixty-one were found to be listed as landowners in the county.63 Of these, nine owned less than 500 acres. Fifty-two owned over 500 acres, and twenty-six owned more than 2,000 acres. Of the remainder, two were doctors and six were army officers. At least another two were land agents, they being William Uniacke and Charles Townsend. Two were ladies, Lady Fermoy and a Miss Rich. It was not possible to determine the backgrounds o f the others, but it is most likely they were local merchants and shopkeepers or even landed proprietors from outside the county. 77 But despite the diverse composition of fields, hunts were still very much landlord society events. Indeed, one o f the original purposes of setting up the Limerick club was to facilitate more opportunities for the local landlords to meet. At the inaugural meeting in 1820, Edward Croker bemoaned the fact that 'the gentlemen of the county seldom met together except at assizes time upon the grand jury' and that they were therefore poorly acquainted with one another. He argued that as 'sportsmen from similar inclinations', landlords who joined would get to know each other more quickly.64 In its early days, the club house of the Kilkenny hunt was Rice's hotel. Twice a year, in November and February, its landlord members assembled there for a fortnight and hunted the surrounding countryside during the day. At night: 'The dinners...were famous for good wine and good fellowship. Sneyd's claret, largely fortified with Hermitage, and old port were the liquids'.65 A sports writer described the opening meet o f the Kildare club at Johnstown in 1830 as follows: Let us observe the arrivals as they pull up outside the Mayo arms. The Kilashee carriage, roomy and old fashioned in its air of comfort, has a large freight behind its greys, among whom are the marquess and marchioness of Drogheda and Mrs. Chaplin. The Baroness De Robeck has a well filled wagonette with guests from Gowran Grange and so has the Honorable Mrs. Barton from Straffan House.... And between 10.45 and 11.00 a.m. there is a complete block of carriages, cars, T-carts, mail phaetons and pony traps in Johnstown as Bond Street ever boasted on the sunniest afternoon in June.66 The heyday of the Meath hunt was said to have been between 1850 and 1914 for 'the fashionable society that surrounded the viceroy's establishment in Dublin found in Meath a happy hunting ground on 4-5 days per week'.67 Finally, the hunt itself was of great importance. The fact that the weather was often 'chilly and showery' or 'wet and cold' did not dampen the enthusiasm of the participants. A meeting of the Meath hunt at Batterstown, Co. Meath, in mid-December 1883, attracted 120 members who gathered despite 'a chilly raw

78 air and strong wind, with ominous dark clouds all around betokening hail or snow'.68 Those who rode in such hunts and who later wrote of them placed much emphasis on the chase and then the kill. Notice of a hunt to be held in Limerick in 1819 proclaimed: 'This fox has already beaten two packs of hounds and never ran less than ten or a dozen miles'.69 Sporting bravado may at times have helped add to an already good story. Regarding a hunt that took place on 26 November 1859, Lord Naas wrote: 'Kildare men claim that not only was it the best run ever known in Kildare, but the finest of any time in any country'.70 His father, the eight earl of Mayo, was Master o f Foxhounds at the time. The hunt met in Maynooth from where it made its way towards Laragh, on to Kilcock, and across the Meath border into Collestown which was actually a covert belonging to the Meath hunt. Here the fox was 'savagely killed' but remembered as 'a brave old traveller...[who] scorned to go to ground in any of the earths he had passed, all of which were of course open'.71 In all it was a journey of some twelve miles covered in just under an hour.72 Of 150 who started the hunt only about fifteen actually finished.73 At any given hunt in Kildare at this time there was an average of 150 members present.74 Between 1868 and 1874, the club had over 400 dogs hunting. With these they found 970 foxes of which 152 were killed, 273 were ran to ground and 545 were lost.75 Little wonder the Irish Times described the Kildare hunt country in the 1860s as being 'one of the best in Ireland, the eastern and northern district being the cream, a large portion of which is not surpassed by any country in the United Kingdom, as regards scent and good going at all seasons'.76

79 iii Horse racing There were close links between fox hunting and horse racing, especially steeplechasing, in Ireland. In 1851, a steeple chase, akin to a present day point to point race, took place at Cappenagh in Kilkenny between members of the Kilkenny hunt.77 In 1861, the Limerick Chronicle advertised the 'Limerick grand drag hunt'. It was: Open to England, Ireland and Scotland, will take place on Monday 23 April next, at half past two o' clock, within six miles of Limerick, over about five miles of a fair hunting country, all grass, for hunters that have been regularly hunted with any established pack of fox hounds, to carry not less than twelve stone, and to be ridden by gentlemen in fox hunting costume.78 Prior to 1851, the Ward Union Hunt in Co. Meath had traditionally held a steeplechase meeting at Ashbourne. That year they decided to transfer it to Fairy house and on the 23 April a four mile steeplechase for thirty sovereigns was the first race run there over the new course that was eventually to become the home of the Irish grand national.79 By the 1840s, landlords had enthusiastically become involved in steeplechasing as stewards of local meets, trainers, owners or jockeys of participating horses, sponsors of prizes or developers of tracks. For the 'ew Melton stakes'held at Cahir in 1842, the course was developed by the marquis of Waterford on his land at Ronscar. Its three miles took in thirty-two fences. Those who gathered there to partake included Lords Clonmell, Howth, and Waterford himself, as well as George Moore and his brother Augustus.80 The St. Lawrences of Howth were amongst the most enthusiastic of the sample group families when it came to developing tracks. The Baldoyle races originated in the early 1830s from the matches and steeplechases organised by the third earl in the deer park adjacent to Howth Castle.81 In 1872, Howth financed a new flat race course at Baldoyle which had the widest track in the country. His son and successor was instrumental in founding the Galway races. The fourth earl's links with Galway were largely due to the fact that he was

80 M.P. for Galway borough from 1868 to 1874. In 1876, a local racing official, W.H. Halliday, wrote to him: But for your lordship there never would have been any races in Galway unless mere country runs of the Ennis and Roscommon type, so it is impossible to exclude your lordship's name in the general observations their excellence may give rise to.82 Local landlords also gave prizes at race meetings. In 1872, the Monaghan steeplechase was run for the Rossmore cup and fifty sovereigns presented by Lord Rossmore.83 'The Wicklow steeplechase' run on the 20 April was for the Shillelagh plate and 100 sovereigns presented by Earl Fitzwilliam.84 'The Meath Hunt steeplechase' run the same month was for the Slane cup and twenty-five sovereigns presented by the marquis of Slane.85 The earl of Howth added 100 sovereigns to the purse for the 'Patriotic stakes' at the Baldoyle meet in May.86 On 17 April the 'Farmers' challenge cup' for the Punchestown meet was presented by Lord Otto Fitzgerald of Carton with the earl of Clonmell adding twenty-five sovereigns.87 By then, Punchestown had become the most famous hunt meeting in the country, if not in the United Kingdom. In 1850, the advantages of the course had attracted the attentions of the Kildare hunt club which had hitherto been holding race meetings in a variety of places scattered across the Kildare hunt country.88 Punchestown owed much of its initial success to the sponsorship of the Corinthian cup from 1853 by William Hutchinson, son of Lord Donoughmore.89 From 1853 to 1880 it was won ten times by landlords or their sons from the sample group. These were Lord Drogheda who won it three years in a row from 1851 to 1853; Lord Howth who won it in 1858, 1861 and 1872; Lord Naas who won it in 1862 and Lord Cloncurry who won it in 1879.90 During the first two day meeting held at Punchestown in 1854, the artist Michael Angelo Hayes captured the dominant position of landlords and their connections in 'the Corinthian cup’ in his painting, 'The Corinthian cup at Punchestown'.91 It depicted the leading personalities in Irish steeplechasing at this time who were Lords Conyngham, Drogheda, Waterford, Howth, Clonmell, Cloncurry; Sir Philip Crompton, Col. Campbell, Major Dickson, Hon. William Hely-Hutchinson, and Captains Barnard, Warburton, Seveme, Wombwell, Chichester, Barclay and Hilton.92 Flat racing was much more lucrative, but it did not offer the same opportunities to smaller landowners for involvement except from a spectator point of view. As smaller landowners all kept chasers, they could afford to enter them in hunt races. Not so with flat racers which were more expensive to train and breed and, therefore, ownership and administration of flat racing became more of the preserve of the peerage or larger landowners. The formation of the Curragh Turf Club in the late eighteenth century was the first real step in the organisation of flat racing in Ireland and it, too, took its stimulus from landlords, especially Thomas Conolly of Castletown who became the 'father' of the club.93 Throughout the nineteenth century, membership of the Turf Club remained exclusively the domain of landlords and those most closely associated with the landed classes such as army officers. This was facilitated by strict rules of admission. As a prospective member had to be nominated by an acting steward and seconded by another member, exclusivity was guaranteed.94 Of the twenty-two members of the Turf Club in 1870, five were landlords from the sample. These were the marquis of Slane, Lords Drogheda and Howth, Col. John Leslie and Col. J.C. Westenra.95 The chief officers of the Turf Club were the three stewards. From 1850 to 1880, fourteen men served as stewards. All were landlords or army officers. Of the fourteen, five were from the sample group - the marquis of Slane, Col. J.C. Westenra, the marquis of Waterford, the earl of Howth and the marquis of Drogheda. By the mid-nineteenth century, the stewards of the Turf Club had taken responsibility for co-ordinating racing throughout the country. The Turf Club rules stated that they could 'determine disputes relative to horse racing referred to them from country meetings, provided a statement of fact is agreed

82 to, signed by the parties concerned, and that they sign an agreement to abide by such decision'.96 The increase in race meetings in the post-famine period had made it necessary for some organisation to co-ordinate racing in Ireland. Between 1850 and 1873, the number of race meets had risen by just over 60 per cent while the prize money on offer had risen by almost 100 per cent (see table 4.1). For the same period the number of Irish horses in training rose from 520 in 1850 to 906 in 1878, again an increase of almost 100 per cent.97 The role of landlords and the Curragh was significant in these increases. By the early nineteenth century, the Curragh had become an established training area with many of the larger landowners building racing lodges in its vicinity and employing their own private trainers and grooms. Of the sample landlords, for example, the La Touches of Harristown had a lodge at Knockaulin. To the southwest of the Curragh were the Conolly stables. W.W. Westenra, Baron Rossmore, built the magnificent Rossmore lodge there in the 1830s. A short distance away, the marquis of Slane renovated Pope Hall and renamed it Conyngham lodge. The Curragh lodge was the racing establishment of Col. John Pratt of Cabra in Cavan, which was also owned for a time by the marquis of Sligo.98 In 1868, Lord Naas, Richard Bourke, chief secretary of Ireland played a major role in the campaign which led to the passing of the act 'to make better provision for the management and use of the Curragh of Kildare'. This gave parliamentary legitimacy to the existence of the Turf Club, defining for it the area it could use and indicating an area it could lease for ninety-nine years for building purposes. Above all it laid down that it shall not be lawful for the Secretary of State for War or the commanding officers of the camp or any other officer to use for review, drill or exercise of Her Majesty's troops, any part of that portion of the said green lands herein before described without the leave in writing of the lord lieutenant.99 While landlords dominated the administration level of flat racing, they also indulged at other levels as owners, breeders, trainers and jockeys. One

83 owner who had much success at all levels was George Moore of Moore Hall in Mayo. Bom at the ancestral home in March 1810, Moore was later educated at Cambridge where one biographer perhaps rather unfairly claimed that 'he leamt little except skill at billiards'.100 He goes on to say that when it became clear this was the only type of education Moore was acquiring, it was decided to bring him home and he returned to Mayo 'with a keen desire for life, for horses, for hounds, for racing, for duelling...for everything except drinking1.101 Tours of the continent or constant reproaches from his mother seem to have done little to dampen Moore's enthusiasm for his leisure and by 1841 'George Moore and his brother Augustus had given up all else and devoted themselves heart and soul to racing and riding'.102 Initially Moore's success was in steeple chasing. Anonymous was regarded as the best steeplechaser Moore ever had.103 The Field later wrote of this horse in 1886: Anonymous won the first steeplechase he ever started for over the Laraghbrian course near Maynooth on 12 April 1841, and that was followed by another winning record at Tuam, when he won over the walls in a field of ten, and with his truly sporting owner as a pilot.104 In 1842, Anonymous won the 'New Melton stakes' at Cahir, this time George and his brother won £1,000 in bets plus the stake.105 By now, Moore had a reputation as not only a successful owner, but one of the finest jockeys in the United Kingdom. In the same year, he won four out of the five races on the Corinthian Stakes card at the Curragh as a jockey. The earl of Howth won the fifth.106 The following year, Moore was elected steward of the Turf Club in succession to the marquis of Sligo. But he continued to be involved in other racing areas. In 1846, he landed perhaps his greatest betting coup when another of his famous horses, Coranna, won the Chester Cup. Moore and his associates, including Lord Waterford, scooped £17,000, his share coming to £9,000.107 By the 1860s, Moore Hall had become a veritable racing establishment. In 1860,

84 his horse Croaghpatrick won the Stewards' cup at Doncaster in a field of forty- five, having been quoted at 40 to 1 in the ring at one stage.108 Around the same time, Master George won six consecutive races 'so that plenty of money flowed into his owner's pockets'.109 His biographer claims this meant that Moore Hall was re-roofed, election debts were paid and his eldest son was taken out of the racing stables and given a proper education.110 The Moores by no means monopolised the racing exploits of the 100 families. Ten landlords from the sample group were listed as official jockeys in the Irish Racing Calendar of 1880 (see table 4.2). Of the nine starters in the 'Kildare Hunt challenge cup' at Punchestown that year, three horses were owned and ridden by owners from the sample. These were Lord Cloncurry, who owned and rode Kilrue; Lord Clonmell who rode his own Conjurer; and Lord Mayo who also owned and rode Dr. Tait.111 On the same day, Old Obadiah represented Lord Doneraile in the 'Bishopscourt plate'.112 In the late 1820s, Lord Langford of Summerhill in Meath owned the great Sir Hercules which at the time was valued at £2,500.'13 He was unbeaten in Ireland as a two-year-old and as a three-year-old in 1829 secured victories at the major English courses of Doncaster and York and came third in one of the English classics, the 'St. Leger'.114 Even more impressive was Sir Hercules' stud career producing horses which captured many more of the English classics and in the process helping to establish Irish breeding. In Corsair, he produced the winner of the 1839 'Two thousand guineas. Coronation won the 1841 Epsom 'derby'. He produced Birdcatcher and Faugh-a-Ballagh from Guiccidi. In 1836 Birdcatcher won the Madrid and Peel cups at the Curragh. Birdcatcher himself later produced the 'derby' winner, Daniel O'Rourke and 'St. Leger' winners, Knight of St. George, Warlock and the Baron. In 1845, The Baron also won 'the Cesarewitch'. In 1844, Faugh-A-Ballagh became the first Irish bred winner of both the 'St. Leger' and 'the Cesarewitch' in the same year.115

85 In his memoirs the earl of Dunraven wrote: 'As a business or a pastime it is absorbing, and of all phases of society commend me to the racing set as possessing those qualities that make society enjoyable'.1,6 As a breeder and winning owner, Dunraven enjoyed great success in the later decades of the nineteenth century. In partnership with Sir Randolph Churchill, he owned L'abbesse de Jouame which won the 'Portland Plate' and the 'Hardwicke stakes', and most particularly the 'Oaks' in 1889.117 In 1893, Molly Morgan won the 'Cambridgeshire' for him. She was the dam of Land League which also won the 'Cambridgeshire' as well as thirty-two other races and a total of over £6,500 in stake money.118 The aforementioned L'abbesse de Jouame produced Desmond which went on to win the 'Coventry stakes' at Ascot and the 'July stakes' at Newmarket. However, it was Desmond's stud career which was most notable. In all his offspring won stake money totalling around £180,000 (see table 4.3). iv Clubs In his unpublished memoirs, Shane Leslie wrote: 'A gentleman's standing in his world was signalled by his list of clubs and it was worth paying hundreds of pounds in subs.'119 Here again, membership was dominated by landlords in the nineteenth century and in this case was exclusively male. The club as a social institution had its roots in the coffee houses of the later Stuart period. Gentlemen tended to gather in various houses for the purpose of drinking coffee, the fashionable beverage of the time. They gradually made the acquaintance of the other habitués of the place, thus encouraging them to select a particular coffee house for a daily visit in the knowledge that they were certain to meet men of their own tastes and ideas. Irish clubs took their inspiration from London clubs such as Boodle's, Brooke's and Arthur's which were founded between 1762 and 1765.120 Around this time, Patrick Daly, a former tavern waiter, opened a chocolate house at numbers two and three Dame Street in Dublin, thus founding what was to be 'the most famous of the Dublin clubs prior to the union...and the chief resort of

86 the nobility and members of parliament'.121 In 1791, Daly's was rehoused in College Green where a much grander building than the one in Dame Street was constructed to the design of Francis Johnson. It was furnished in splendour 'with grand lustres, inlaid tables and marble chimney pieces, the chairs and sofas white and gold, covered with the richest aurora silk'.122 Daly's also acquired the name of 'being a fast place, where high play and heavy drinking were indulged in and where many a reckless challenge to a duel was thrown down'.123 R.F. Brooke claimed that 'no doubt much of the wire pulling which seems to be a necessary part of the procedure of politics went on inside its four walls'.124 It was, in fact, a political split within the club that led to the foundation of the Kildare Street Club. While Daly's popularity declined rapidly after the union the Kildare Street Club continued to flourish and by the 1870s was Ireland's pre-eminent club. 'An historical note' on the club, written in 1880 by George Wood Maunsell, directly attributes its foundation 'to an act of hasty tempered blackballing' about 1782.125 It concerned the Conynghams of Slane. Lord Francis Conyngham had twin sons. Henry was to become third baron, first earl and marquis Conyngham. Nathaniel, his twin, was to inherit substantial estates in Co. Clare belonging to the Burton family. Their family background, wealth and social prominence made it inevitable that both would hold much influence in landed circles. Maunsell's note claims (but does not specify why) that 'in the stormy politics of the day [Nathaniel] was black balled at Daly's club....His friends took fire at the slight and forthwith showed their strength by founding a new club'.126 Within a short time the Kildare Street Club had taken the lead in the city. Before the Union it had doubled the size of its premises by adding dining rooms and a grand drawing room. A billiard room and a racket court soon followed.127 Around the mid-1850s, the members of the club having decided that the club house was still too small purchased numbers 1,2, and 3 Kildare 87 Street and a new club house was built to the design of Sir Thomas Deane which was completed in November I860.128 Unfortunately, just prior to its opening, a fire destroyed the old house resulting in the deaths of three servants. All of the records were also destroyed as was much of the plate, valuable furnishings, paintings and a library of 15,000 volumes.129 By the 1870s, the Kildare Street Club was easily the most popular club with the landlords in the sample. In all it was possible to establish the clubs to which ninety-five of the 100 landlords were affiliated in the late 1870s.130 Of the fifty-five peers, twenty-seven belonged to the Kildare Street Club. Fifteen untitled landowners also belonged to it, but these were mainly large landowners such as Edward Saunderson of Castlesaunderson, John Madden of Hilton Park, Henry Bruen of Oak Park, Charles Doyne of Wells, Ambrose Congreve of Mount Congreve and Percy La Touche of Harristown. The smaller landowners were not represented at all, presumably because could not afford the subscription or because they simply did not spend the same amount of time in Dublin. According to the rules in 1860, admission to the club was to take place by ballot only. No ballot was to be valid unless twenty-one members were balloted. One black bean in seven excluded. Each candidate's name, address and profession had to be put up in the club one week before being balloted for. He had to be seconded by two members, one of whom had to be present at the ballot.131 Any person that was rejected could not be balloted for again for six months, and if a person was to suffer the ignominity of being rejected three times they could never again be proposed.132 Prior to the ballot, £28.5s had to be deposited with the club secretary, to be returned if the person was not elected. Elected members paid a yearly subscription of £7 on the first day of January. If this was not paid by the 20 February, membership would be withdrawn. However, provision was made for those who might not be in Ireland between those two dates again emphasising the necessity to facilitate the travel arrangements of the wealthier families.

88 Similarly the rules stated that 'no member being an officer of the army or navy and who shall be absent from Ireland on His Majesty's Service shall be chargeable for any arrears for such time as he shall be absent upon duty'.133 Members of the royal family visiting the country were admitted as honorary members without subscription. Besides membership being withdrawn for the non payment of yearly subscriptions, rule xxii stated that any member wilfully infringing the rules and regulations of the club, or whose conduct in or out of the club, after his election, shall be derogatory to his station in society, shall be subject to expulsion under the award of a general meeting.134 The only other club in Dublin to which proprietors in the sample belonged was the Sackville Street Club. This club also had its origins in an incident similar to the one in Daly's that led to the establishment of the Kildare Street Club. Around 1794, 'a gentleman of high position connected with some of the northern counties' was black balled from the Kildare Street Club. As with the Conyngham incident, his supporters established a rival club which became the Sackville Street Club. By 1880, however, Maunsell was writing that 'the two clubs have at all times held friendly relations... many members being in fact members of both'.135 This was borne out by findings regarding the sample. Sixteen peers belonged to this club and four untitled landowners. Of this total of twenty, thirteen belonged to both clubs. Along with Lords Clonbrock, Clonmell, De Freyne, Headfort, Longford, Castletown, Ormonde and Talbot De Malahide, they included Henry Bruen, Thomas Conolly, Alexander Stewart, Charles P. Leslie and John Madden, all of whom were large landowners. The rules of the Sackville Street Club were almost identical in most respects to the Kildare Street Club regarding election of members. There were differences in admission and subscription fees. Before balloting for membership to the Sackville Street Club, a fee of twenty-six guineas had to be paid to the secretary and the annual subscription was six guineas. The rules of the Sackville Street Club also stipulated, for example, that no dinner would take

89 place after 6 p.m. No more than six strangers could dine in the club on any one given day; no member could, under any circumstances, allow a stranger to pay for anything supplied in the club; no stranger could be invited to dine more than twice in the one week and 'no person resident in the city of Dublin or within twenty miles thereof shall be deemed eligible to be invited'.136 Moving out from Dublin, there were about thirteen provincial clubs. R.C. Bowen of Bowen's Court belonged to the Cork County Club. Lords Listowel and Doneraile belonged to the Waterford County Club, and Lords Dunraven and Inchiquin became members of the Limerick County Club when it was reorganised in 1897.137 These clubs were particularly popular with the smaller landowners who were not frequent visitors to Dublin. The first provincial club to be founded was in Limerick in 1813.138 It conducted itself on the same lines as the Kildare Street Club. This, in effect, meant that the rules heretofore set out regarding the Kildare Street Club applied except that the entrance fee was twelve guineas and yearly subscription was only three and a half guineas.139 A town house was bought which became the club house. The back parlour was converted into the coffee room. The front parlour became a writing room and the front drawing room a reading room where the London, Dublin and local newspapers were filed. The back drawing room was transformed into a card room, while the stable at the rear was reconstructed and formed into a billiard room. A game of billiards cost 4d and it 'became very popular with the members and the table from the first brought in a considerable income'.140 For Irish landlords who frequented London on a regular basis membership of a club there was essential to their social standing. This increased the number of clubs to which a landlord could belong simultaneously. But very few of the untitled landowners from the case study belonged to more than two clubs. Those who did were large landowners. Edward Cooper of Markree was a member of three - the Kildare Street, Carlton and Guards. Arthur Mac Murrough Kavanagh had membership in the Sackville, Carlton and 90 Royal Yacht. John Madden, Charles Doyne, Percy La Touche, William Gregory and Nathaniel Barton all belonged to two. Except for La Touche who was a member of the Kildare Street and Brook's, the rest belonged to Kildare Street and Carlton. With regard to the peers in the sample, three belonged to five clubs, these being Lords Doneraile, Headfort and Longford. All three had the Kildare, Sackville and Carlton in common. Lords Ormonde, Castletown and Talbot De Malahide were members of four clubs, and again all had the Kildare, Sackville and Carlton in common. Fifteen more peers belonged to three clubs. The Carlton was the most popular London club with Irish landlords (see table 4.4). Thirty-four of the 100 sample landlords were members of it in the 1870s. This included seven untitled landowners - Cooper, Wynne, Doyne, Kavanagh, Bruen, Gregory and Barton. Clubs fulfilled certain functions. Shane Leslie wrote: 'London life in Victorian days would have been impossible without the clubs which controlled the etiquette, costume and behaviour of gentlemen and professionals to an extraordinary degree'.141 In many respects this was true. According to the aforequoted rule xxii of the Kildare St. Club gentlemanly conduct was expected and demanded.142 Clubs acted as an extension of public school life. They enhanced social status and exposed members to influential contacts. In this respect, membership of a club such as the Junior United Services Club could be important. Of the sample group, Lords Longford, Harlech, Conyngham, Louth and Dunsany, Henry Herbert of Muckross and Thomas O' Donell of Newport were members of this club in the 1880s. Its rules and regulations stated that its membership should consist of the princes of the blood royal, officers of the navy, army, marines, fencibles (a soldier for the defence of the country against invasion, and not liable to serve abroad), regular militia, and those of the East India Company's service. It was also open to persons holding appointments in military departments at home and abroad, lords lieutenant of Great Britain and 91 Ireland.143 In the mid-1850s the entrance fee was slightly higher than most clubs, fixed at £30, with an annual subscription of £6.144 Here, again, much the same rules and regulations applied as in the other clubs, one difference being that all members had to pay their bills for all expenses they incurred before they left as accounts were not permitted.145 Clubs were political nerve centres. For this reason, the leanings of Irish landlords towards the Conservative party was reflected in the number from the sample who were members of the Carlton in London. The Carlton had been founded in March 1832 as a Tory club. It was, in fact, formed to fight the supporters of the reform bill and to serve as a rallying point for the Tories.146 Disraeli later came to regard it as the 'recognised social citadel of Toryism'.147 In his Democracy and organisation o f political parties Ostrogorski claimed: The plan of the club succeeded. Members of parliament belonging to both houses, from the leaders down to the most obscure members met at the Carlton, laid their heads together there, and gave or received the word of command. The local leaders, the provincial notables, who came up to London and wished to see the great men of the party were sure to find them at the Carlton, and there they could approach them on a footing of equality and even of intimacy.148 On the other hand, the Carlton's Liberal counterpart, the Reform Club, founded in 1836, attracted only one of the landlords from the sample in the 1870s - Lord Carew. Some clubs allowed landlords to mix more socially with the literati and academics. Charles Leslie and Lords Talbot De Malahide and Sligo belonged to the Athenaeum. This club was founded in 1824 by a Mr. Croker. Writing of it in the 1940s, Guy Boas proclaimed that ...the Athenaeum was a formidable institution. Crested with Athene, and decorated by its architect, Mr. Decimus Burton, with a Panathenic procession which formed the frieze of the Parthenon, served by liveried flunkeys attired in fine drab coats and velvet breeches, the Athenaeum was as hard to enter as the proverbial eye of the needle. It was not enough to be an artist, one must be a member of the Royal Academy; it was not enough

92 to be a writer or a scientist, one must have written a book, and - further -, one must have published it.149 Boas claimed that its exclusivity left ample room for another club to supplement the Athenaeum, one 'recruited from patrons of and caterers for the public taste, run on the Athenaeum lines, but less formal, and in which qualifications for membership were of a less exacting order'.150 This gave rise to the Garrick Club to which Lords Donoughmore, Mayo and Dunraven from the sample were members. The idea behind the Garrick was that it should be the centre of all that was best in the world of drama, that it would allow for interaction between artists and patrons and act as a rendezvous centre for all literary men.151 The character of the club was to be a social one, so the committee 'were compelled to exercise vigilant care, for it was clear that it would be better that ten unobjectionable men should be excluded than one terrible bore should be admitted'.152 The entrance fee was fixed at ten guineas, the annual subscription being six guineas. The original membership was in the region of 170 and the likes of Donoughmore, Mayo and Adare from the case study could hope to have mingled with literary members such as Trollope, Dickens and Thackeray. Finally, clubs were social centres. They were probably most popular as centres to dine. In the early days of the Limerick club dinners were served between 4 and 6 p.m. A 'chop dinner' was available at 2s 6d per head. It consisted of a choice of mutton chop, veal cutlet, beef steak or salmon 'when not exceeding 8d per pound', with bread, beer, cheese and vegetables. Suppers were served after 10 p.m. consisting of hot or cold meats or 'two and a half dozen oysters with bread and butter and two tumblers of punch for 2s 6d' providing an alternative.153 The early dinner disappeared after the Crimean war. Coasters 'holding decanters of port and claret circulating on the brightly polished mahogany table' gave way 'to the table d’hote...and champagne came into fashion as an after dinner wine'.154 In turn, this later dinner hour 'resulted in

93 the disappearance of the often boisterous suppers with punch drinking'.155 Luncheon first made its appearance here as in other clubs around 1846. The menus at the larger clubs such as the Carlton offered much more variety but of course at a much higher price. Breakfast in the late 1830s was priced at Is 6d a head.156 Around the same time it was ordered that 'on all days except Saturday or Sunday a joint to be ready at 4 o' clock during the sitting of parliament...the charge of each table to be one shilling which includes bread, butter, cheese, English pickles, small beer and biscuits'.157 The charge for dinner was fifteen shillings exclusive of wine. Members could only dine if they formed a party of not less than six and not more than fourteen by giving notice not later than noon. If a member who had put down his name failed to show a fine of 10s 6d was imposed on him. Non-members were not allowed entry to the club.158 (See table 4.5 for typical day's menu available at Carlton Club in 1876.) Both billiards and card playing were very much an integral part of club life both in Ireland and England. Card playing was 'always very popular' in the Limerick club, being initially allowed in all rooms, but having to be eventually prohibited in the coffee room after 10 p.m. to allow tables to be set for dinner.159 A committee meeting of 23 October 1830 sanctioned the purchase of 144 packs of cards.160 Upstairs rooms in Boodle's were reserved for card playing.161 The Junior United Service club found it necessary to outlaw the games of Loo and Hazard while dice were strictly forbidden in the club and no higher stake than five shilling points could be played for on penalty of expulsion.162 However, card playing obviously remained a prominent pastime, the rules stating that the club house was opened 8 a.m. to 2 a.m. after which no card playing or refreshments were permitted.163 A leisure activity which caused much controversy at this time in the clubs was smoking. Until the 1850s, 'considerable hostility was shown to smoking' in the Limerick club.164 In 1833, there was a concession that smokers 94 could use a room called 'the tap’ which was behind the coffee room. The recorders of the club's history declared that it must be remembered that the committee at this time was composed of gentlemen who were bom in the eighteenth century, and were snuff takers themselves, regarding smoking as an innovation to be put down with a firm hand.165 According to a resolution of 1856 smoking was to be allowed in one billiard room at all times and in another after 8 p.m. as well as in the smoking room. This decision was influenced by the resident army officers who could join the club as honorary members and who introduced Turkish tobacco and cigarettes as well as the Bayrout pipe to the locality following their service in the Crimea.166 By 1882, the writing room had also become a smoking area.167 The vexed question of smoking made its appearance very early in the history of the Carlton. In 1836, a notice was posted prohibiting smoking in all areas of the club except the smoking room. By the turn of the century it was prohibited only in the coffee room and small library.168 In 1857, smoking was not allowed in any of the rooms of Boodle's. (Only one owner from the case study was a member of this club, Lord Granard.) Four years later one room was set aside to placate those who indulged.169 The rules of the Junior United Services club were much more vehemently anti-smoking in the mid-1850s. No member 'on any account' was allowed to smoke 'on the steps of the club, within the entrance hall or in any part of the club house except in the smoking room'.170 v Conclusion Up until the last quarter of the nineteenth century, there was little sign that the social lifestyle enjoyed for generations by Irish landlords was under threat. Big house functions continued to proliferate. Landlords indulged their love of fox hunting, racing and shooting. The Dublin and London seasons were more popular than ever. The shared experiences of public school, colonial career, and club life integrated Irish landlords into the wider British landed

95 class. Marriages between Irish and British landlord families helped to further consolidate this. Yet there were ominous clouds on the horizon. The late 1870s, and the 1880s were to be characterised by agricultural depression and land agitation in Ireland. The same decades were also to witness an assault on the political elitism of landlords. If the politico-economic strength of landlords had enhanced their social status, then anything that would threaten their economic and political strength could only have grave consequences for this social status and therefore for the social function of the big house. Thus, in order to analyse the social decline of the big house in Ireland, one must first of all analyse the economic and political decline of Irish landlords from 1879 onwards.

96 Chapter 5

Rents, debts and mortgages in mid-Victorian Ireland Introduction Any work which purports to deal with the decline of the big house in Ireland from 1879 to 1950 must by its nature place particular emphasis on the economic decline of Irish landlords. It was on the basis of their economic strength that landlords first constructed their mansions. It was this economic strength that allowed the social aspect of the big house to flourish into the early part of the twentieth century. And until the second half of the nineteenth century it facilitated landlords' involvement in local and national politics thereby giving the big house its political function. Conversely the decline of the big house was inextricably entwined with the economic decline of Irish landlords. The economic elite status of landlords in Ireland was based primarily on the rental income they drew from their estates which was increasingly supplemented by demesne farming from the 1850s. Only about one per cent of resident Irish landlords were fortunate enough to own profitable coal mines as the Dunravens did in Wales, or urban property in cities such as Dublin like Lords De Vesci and Longford. Thirteen of the sample owners owned 122,000 acres between them in Britain with a valuation of £190,000. Earl Fitzwilliam, for example, supplemented his huge Irish acreage with 24,000 acres in England which had a valuation of almost £90,000. Lord Dunraven, owned 24,300 acres in Wales with a valuation of almost £24,500 while Lord Headfort owned 21,000 acres with a valuation of £18,000 (see table 1.2). But regardless of what outside investments they had, Irish landlords maintained their big houses with the income they drew from their Irish estates. This chapter and chapter 6 are an exploration of the reasons for the economic decline of landlords in Ireland from 1879 to 1950. Essentially, this chapter looks at the reasons why landlords found themselves in a position

98 whereby they were forced to sell much of their landed estates under the land acts from 1881 to 1909. Chapter 6 deals with the actual sale of landed estates which took place from the Land Act of 1881 to the end of the period under study. It looks at the economic consequences that the sale of estates had on landlords as their income changed from a landed one to an invested one and as the amount of land required to maintain a big house fell below a viable level. i Rent increases in mid-Victorian Ireland The reasons for the economic decline of Irish landlords from the late 1870s are manifold. Cumulatively they led to a decline in the disposable income that landlords needed to maintain their big houses and, indeed, their economic, social and political status in Irish society. Economic decline did not begin until the late 1870s. It was initiated by agricultural depression and the beginning of the land war. As we shall see, rental decline from this period onwards was a result of tenants withholding rents, landlords being forced to grant abatements, the land commissioners fixing rents, and ultimately landlords selling their estates. Decline in disposable income was a result of the level of indebtedness accumulated by landlords in the post famine period. Landlords failed to exploit the economic upturn which characterised the decades from the 1850s to the 1870s by raising their rents and proportionately gaining from it. This chapter will show that instead of a widespread raising of rents, Irish landlords extensively mortgaged their estates assuming that the good times would last and that tenants would continue to pay their rents. It was a short-sightedness that was to have long term consequences for the economic future of Irish landlords. Since the 1970s, much work on the movement of rents and estate management has been forthcoming from historians such as W.E. Vaughan, J.S. Donnelly jnr. and Barbara Solow. The general consensus amongst these

99 historians has been that the rent increases which took place in post-famine Ireland did not keep pace with the general upsurge in agricultural prices. Vaughan, for example, has shown that between the early 1850s and late 1870s the price of agricultural produce including oats rose by 58 per cent; butter by 86 per cent; cereals as a whole by 46 per cent and livestock products by 81 per cent.1 However, in a study of rentals for fifty estates Vaughan found that rents had increased by an average of only 20 per cent over the same period.2 Therefore, he concludes that such increases 'favoured the tenants'.3 Similarly J.S. Donnelly, while finding some 'extremely large' rent increases on individual estates in Co. Cork, concluded that the more typical increases ranged from 20 to 30 per cent which were 'well within the limits of the price and production increments of the time'.4 Barbara Solow, using parliamentary papers and agricultural statistics, calculated that rents increased by just under 30 per cent from 1850 to 1880.5 The findings of these three historians, therefore, put typical rent increases at between 20 and 30 per cent in the post-famine period. However, it would have taken a rent increase of around 40 per cent from the 1850s to the 1870s to keep apace with the price increments of the time and thereby give landlords a proportionate share of the increased economic prosperity. What then was the situation on the estates in the sample? How did findings regarding them correspond to those of Vaughan, Donnelly and Solow? A study of evidence submitted to the Bessborough and Cowper commissions by landlords or their representatives from the sample suggested there was a disinclination to tamper with rents to gain from the economic upturn of the 1850s to late 1870s. There were claims, for example, that there had been no general raising of rents on the King-Harman estate from 1860 to 1880.6 On the Lissadell estate, Henry Gore Booth's tenants had reputedly been paying the same rents since the 1850s.7 Francis Olpherts, agent to the Wynnes of Hazlewood in Sligo, assured the chairman: "There has been no fixing of the

100 rents since I came to the county. There was a good deal of money laid out by the landlord without increase of rent'.8 The agent to the Pakenham-Mahon and Mahon estates in the west let grass lands of 'moderate quality' 25 per cent above Griffith's valuation and lands of'inferior quality' 10-15 per cent above.9 Some years later, Arthur Mac Murrough Kavanagh told the Cowper commission that his tillage lands were let at 1 per cent above Griffith's valuation. His grazing rents were 20-50 per cent above but these rents had been in existence for over fifty years and had been 'cheerfully' paid by the tenantry until the advent of the land war.10 As the submissions of the two agents and Mac Murrough Kavanagh suggest, Griffith's valuation, carried out in the 1850s and 1860s, came to be regarded as being indicative of the rental valuation of an estate in the post­ famine period even though it had been intended for taxation purposes rather than as an indicator of the real letting value of land. By the mid-1860s, with increased agricultural prosperity, Griffith's valuation was around 15 per cent below the real letting value, and by the 1870s at least 25-30 per cent below. 11 John Ball Greene, the man who replaced Griffith at the valuation office, claimed that it would have been necessary to add 33 per cent to Griffith's estimates to calculate the real letting value of the mid-1860s.12 A survey of 1,300 estates carried out by the Irish Land Committee in 1880 showed that over 40 per cent of rents prevailing in that year had been fixed pre 1851 and another 30 per cent had been fixed the following decade. By the late-1870s only 7 per cent of Irish land was let at more than 40 per cent above Griffith's valuation; 46 per cent was let at up to 40 per cent above; about 7 per cent at its level; and 16 per cent under it.13 But were landlords and their representatives telling the truth when they made claims that their rent increases had been moderate? Evidence gleaned from royal commissions and select committees may perhaps rightly be regarded with some degree of scepticism. They did after all only draw on a small nucleus

101 of landlords or their representatives and it was invariably the same ones who presented evidence time after time. It could also be claimed, perhaps with some justification, that landlords offered the type of information which might further their own cause, and that they were generally offering it to committees composed of members of their own class. Accordingly, as a source these commissions might be regarded as weak and unsuitable for an impartial study of the movement of rents in the country as a whole. However, when landlords' claims correspond to evidence taken from estate rentals, which do not lie, then these claims can be regarded as being fairly accurate as to what was happening on Irish estates in general. A study of the rent ledgers of the Crofton estate in Roscommon, for example, shows that rents had increased by 26.5 per cent from 1852 to 1880 14. On the Clonbrock estate rents were increased by 13 per cent from 1854 to 1869. There was a further increase of 11 per cent from 1869 to 1880.15 On the Butler of Castlecrine estate rents increased by 28 per cent in the same period.16 On the Ashtown estate there was an increase of around 24 per cent in twenty years from 1852 to 1872.17 On the expansive Fitzwilliam estates in Wicklow, the rent increased from £42,344 in 1859 to £49,674 in 1880, a 15 per cent increase.18 On the Pratt estate in Co. Cavan there were general rent increases in 1855 and again eleven years later in 1866 resulting in an aggregated increase of less than 30 per cent.19 Table 5.1 shows that the rents on the Ormonde estates in Kilkenny and Tipperary increased by 26.3 per cent over a thirty year period from 1850 to 1880. As the table shows, the levels of increases often varied from area to area on individual estates. The rise on the Kilcash estate was only 4.8 per cent compared to 53.6 per cent on the Garryricken estate. Similar variations were also found on whole estates belonging to other landlords. The Headfort estate rentals, for example suggest there was no increase in rent on Lord Headfort's

102 estate between 1866 and 1893 20. Yet, on most of Lord Cloncurry's estate, rents increased by up to 75 per cent between 1850 and 1880.21 Disregarding the latter two where such rent movements were more the exception than the rule, the average rent increase on the sample estates surveyed was around 26 per cent. This falls between Vaughan's 20 per cent, Donnelly's 20-30 per cent and Solow's 30 per cent. The findings for the sample group, therefore, substantiate the argument that Irish landlords did not benefit proportionately from the economic prosperity of the 1850s to 1880s. The conclusion of the Bessborough commission, for all the scepticism which one might attach to the evidence supplied to it by landlords and their representatives, now seems quite a valid one that only under 'special circumstances' did landlords regard land as a commercial commodity to be let to the highest bidder. The report claimed in 1881 that though the amount of the rent was at the discretion of the landlord, and the tenants had in reality no voice in regulating what he had to pay, nevertheless it was unusual to exact what in England would have been considered as a full or fair commercial re n t22.

It would seem that landlords preferred a regular income to any long term economic plan that might maximise profits, but simultaneously irk a prospering tenantry that would resent such an approach. As John La Touche informed the Bessborough commission: I don't think that the landlords in general have their land let at the highest rental they could obtain for it. I was offered double the rent a few months ago for a farm that I let at exactly one half the rent I was offered for it....I would rather have those that I have known holding farms about me than a stranger coming in.23 Similarly, Cochran Davys, a Sligo solicitor, told the Bessborough commission that evictions in that county were 'almost nil...everybody knows there is hardly ever a really final eviction for non payment....The landlord is not at all anxious to get rid of a tenant'.24

103 There was a fear that any tampering with rents in the prosperous period from 1865 to 1878 would lead to combinations and rent strikes. The fact of the matter was that rents were being paid punctually during these years and although arrears were still prevalent, landlords were nevertheless collecting the equivalent of their rent rolls and more. On the Crofton estate between 1867 and 1878, the maximum amount of arrears due in any year was £306. Arrears as a percentage of rents due never rose above 5.3 per cent. At the same time rent and arrears collected came close to or surpassed the estate's rent roll annually over the period (see table 5.2). The situation on the Ormonde estate from 1870 to 1878 was very similar. While arrears as a percentage of rents due averaged around 16.5 per cent per annum, the total income from rents and arrears received from 1870 to 1878 was £177,520 which was slightly above the rent roll of £176,921 (see table 5.3). Increased prosperity and tenants' ability to pay rents is further evidenced in the relatively low eviction rate from the mid-1860s to the late-1870s. There had always been a strong correlation between agricultural depression and evictions. From 1860 to 1864 when the economic boom suffered a temporary setback evictions averaged 1,470 per year.25 Between 1865 and 1879 the total number of families evicted was 8,913, an average of 636 per annum, of which around 20 per cent were readmitted as caretakers.26 The evidence presented by landlords or their representatives from the sample group suggests they avoided evictions during this period, if at all possible. Edward Cooper of Markree informed the chairman of the Bessborough commission: 'With regard to evictions, I have been obliged in the last nine years to put into the sheriffs hands, nineteen cases, they were all returned with the exception of three....Only one was for non payment of rent'.27 Christopher L'Estrange, his agent confirmed this stating: 'I have frequently been obliged to bring ejectments to get the rent, but I have very seldom indeed been obliged to carry them out'.28 Arthur Hamill a county court judge for

104 Roscommon and Sligo recalled only 'one or two cases of evictions, at the outside, from the large estates' which included the Pakenham-Mahon and King- Harman.29 When based in West Cork, he could not recall one eviction on the Bandon estate.30 Lord Howth's agent reported only two evictions in four years.31 John Ross Mahon, a representative of the Guinness Mahon agency which acted on behalf of Lord Clonbrock and William Ross Mahon, claimed that only twelve people had been evicted by the agency for anything but the non payment of rent.32 Edwin Thomas, agent to the O' Donell estate at Newport claimed he had no call to evict tenants on the estate up to that year as all rents had been generally well paid.33 Thus, landlords had seen a remarkable growth in Irish agricultural prosperity in the decades 1850-80. They realised tenant farmers had profited from this. Rents were subsequently better paid than ever before. Landlords could, they assumed, turn a blind eye to accumulating arrears occasionally hoping that in the good years tenants would make them up. Some even assumed this as late as 1881. A Sligo landlord told the Bessborough commission that during the agricultural depression from the late-1870s, he had allowed 25 per cent abatements to ordinary tenants and 15 per cent to leaseholders. 'From some of them', he said, 'I have got no money at all, so we must bear with it until we have a better state of things if possible'.34 ii Mortgages as an alternative to raising rents From the 1850s, the growing popularity of mortgages facilitated what was, in effect, a false prosperity. As a result of the prevailing economic climate and the upsurge in agricultural prices, Irish land became safe collateral for lending institutions, individual financiers and even close relatives and friends within the landlord class, to lend money to Irish landlords on its strength. Landlords resorted to such borrowing in the knowledge that their dependable rental income would always meet repayments. It would have been difficult for

105 any Irish landlord to envisage the land war that was around the comer from them, and even more difficult to envisage the consequences subsequent land legislation would have on their rental income and even accumulated arrears. The period from the 1860s to the mid-1870s was especially important in this respect. Under the Disestablishment Act of 1869, the Church of Ireland had received compensation of almost £8.5 million. In 1870 the R.C.B. established a finance committee to manage this capital in safe securities. At its peak in 1877- 78 the R.C.B. had £3.5 million tied up in Irish estates. From 1871 to 1876, it approved 120 loans to Irish landowners. (Of these, fourteen were landlords from the sample.) Similarly, under the Irish Church Act, the trustees of St. Patrick's College, Maynooth, received a capital sum calculated at fourteen years purchase of the previous annual grant of £26,360 which amounted to £369,030.35 As with the R.C.B. the money had to be invested. At the time, the rate of interest on government consols was 3 per cent. East India stock would have realised 5 per cent but it was in short supply.36 So, like the finance committee of the R.C.B., the trustees of Maynooth decided upon investment in mortgages which would yield from between 4.25 per cent and 4.75 per cent. Soon the college had invested around £300,000 in mortgages, including two loans each to Lords Cloncurry and Granard, which between them accounted for over 50 per cent of this sum. British insurance companies were even more important to Irish landlords in this respect. By the late 1880s, Sir Robert Griffin calculated that British insurance companies had lent £12 million out in Ireland.37 Furthermore, as we shall see in examples below, Irish landowners who could afford it acted as mortgagees for each other. The main incentive for landlords to acquire mortgages in the 1860s- 1870s seems to have been to allow them the facility to cover a variety of debts under the one blanket mortgage thereby simplifying their financial obligations. One interest payment now sufficed where a number had been necessary in the past. In 1873, when Lord Cloncurry entered into agreement with Maynooth

106 college for his first loan of £70,000 it was to pay off three loans and a number of family charges on the estate which amounted to £61,500.38 Around the same time A.J.R. Stewart of Dunfanaghy, Co. Donegal secured a loan from the college for £55,000 to cover a loan to Mr. Mackey for £5,000 taken out in 1861, as well as six separate loans of £5,000 each to the Scottish National Insurance Company taken out between 1862 and 1867.39 In 1871, Samuel Osborne of Duleek in Meath, secured a mortgage of £13,500 to cover loans to an individual financier and to the Royal Exchange Insurance Company and to provide a £200 balance due on a legacy of £2,000 bequeathed by his father to a younger son.40 By the early 1880s, fourteen of the estates in the sample had acquired loans from the R.C.B. In his article on landlord indebtedness, L.P. Curtis uses the method of comparing annual interest repayment to valuation to measure the extent of landlord debt burden. If we apply the same method to the landlords from the sample who had mortgaged at least part of their estates to the R.C.B., we see that in some cases the interest debt burden is remarkably high. Table 5.4 shows that the percentage of debt burden varied considerably from 55.8 per cent on the Howth estate to 2.1 per cent on the Famham estate. The average debt burden of 18.4 per cent falls 9 points short of Curtis's average of 27.4 per cent for all 120 landlords at the time.41 But most of the landlords from the sample were what Curtis termed 'great owners', those who owned estates whose valuation exceeded £15,000. Amongst these he found the average debt burden to be just under 20 per cent, which the average for the estates in the sample approximates.42 It is interesting to note the very low debt burden of the Famham estate of 2.1 per cent. The Famham papers consulted in the N.L.I. show no evidence of the estate being heavily encumbranced in the late nineteenth century. There is the possibility that mortgages were secured elsewhere. However, as we shall see, the Famhams did not sell the bulk of their estate until they were forced to

107 do so under the compulsory terms of the Free State land acts. If they had mortgages, they remained solvent enough to be able to meet repayments without having to sell off portions of their estate. More likely, the level of debt burden on the Famham estate points to the fact that Ulster landlords in the 120 mortgagors were, according to Curtis, the undisputed leaders 'in terms of solvency or lightness of debt burden'.43 Another sample landlord from Ulster, John Leslie, who owned almost 50,000 acres with a valuation of around £21,000 in Monaghan and Donegal, was paying only £25 in interest in the 1870s.44 Likewise, Col. Edward Saunderson maintained a very solvent estate right through the 1880s. He owned in the region of 9,700 acres, the vast majority of which were situated in northern and central Cavan. (Around 100 acres were located in Co. Fermanagh.) At the end of the 1870s his rental income was around £7,000, but more importantly, his biographer tells us that Col. Edward seems to have inherited no mortgage debt from his father, and, since the provision made by Alexander and Sarah [his parents] for their other children was embarrassingly slight, his income was not overburdened by family settlements.45 Only once in 1875 did he overcome 'his inherited aversion to mortgage debt' by raising £2,000 to buy 103 acres.46 His careful and tight reined management of his estate meant the Saundersons remained relatively comfortable and solvent throughout the latter decades of the nineteenth century. However, the Saundersons, the Leslies and the Famhams were very much the exceptions to the rule. Collections of estate papers from other sample families record the extent of their mortgages and encumbrances. In 1847, total mortgages and encumbrances on the Leinster estate, for example, totalled almost £240,000. These included charges on the Kilkea, Maynooth, Rathangan, Kildare and Athy estates amounting to £146,500. There was a mortgage of £65,000 to the Pelican Insurance Company, one of £23,000 to Christopher

108 Nicholson and one of £9,200 to Robert Burrowes. I.O.U. notes amounted to £5,000.47 This figure had not diminished anything by the 1880s. Lord Clonbrock borrowed from individuals, peers and relatives, rather than from institutions. In 1882, he was paying interest on a loan of £9,000 to Lord Ashtown.48 By 1894, he was repaying almost £1,100 per annum in interest on mortgages to Ashtown, Ambrose Congreve, Col. Dillon, Mrs. Deltry and Mrs. Nannay.49 In mid Victorian Ireland, the availability of mortgages allowed landlords to manage debts they had perhaps inherited or debts they had accumulated themselves. The regular payment of rents up to the late 1870s meant interest repayments could be met. But interest was only one source of expenditure on an Irish estate. A myriad of other estate and personal expenses had also to be met. Up to the late 1870s, most landlords coped with these. However, their failure to raise rents in the economic boom years meant they were left with little surplus income to invest for the long term. When rents began to decline, the amount necessary to cover expenditure became a great burden. It was then that the existence of mortgages assumed a greater significance. While interest had been met, the principal sum borrowed remained. When lending institutions began to call in these loans during the 1880s, landlords were faced with no option but to sell off at least part of their estates. In so doing, landlords themselves were diminishing the rental income available to them in the future. But before looking at these developments in more detail, it is necessary to look at the other forms of expenditure that led to the degree of landlord indebtedness which characterised mid Victorian Ireland.

iii What caused landlord indebtedness in mid Victorian Ireland? Lord Dufferin was not exaggerating when he proclaimed in 1874 that 'an Irish estate is like a sponge, and an Irish landlord is never so rich as when he is rid of his property1.50 Dufferin succinctly captured the difficulties facing Irish

109 landlords even before rental income began to decline from the late 1870s. The myriad of expenses incumbent on running an estate soaked up much, if at times not all, of the rental income available to a landlord, particularly a smaller one. Even before interest repayments were taken into consideration agency fees, legal fees, charges, jointures, taxes, rates, charitable donations, abatements, insurance premiums, entertainment bills, and, not least of all, big house and demesne maintenance had to be met. There were also what could be termed extravagances. The keeping of horses and packs of foxhounds was an expensive but integral part of landlord life. Continental tours, worldwide hunting expeditions, and participation in the London ball season also undoubtedly contributed to depleting the family fortunes of peers in particular. References to such expenses do not always appear in estate accounts, but we can assume they provided a substantial, and often unaffordable, drain on income. It was all part of maintaining status. Until now the most detailed work on landlord indebtedness in post­ famine Ireland has been L.P. Curtis jnr's aforementioned article 'Encumbered wealth: Landed indebtedness in post-famine Ireland' which first appeared back in 1980. As Curtis pointed out then, (and with the exception of his own pioneering article and a valuable contribution by W.E. Vaughan in Landlords and tenants in mid-Victorian Ireland51), the same conclusion is applicable today that 'little is known about the nature and extent of landlord indebtedness during the nineteenth century'.52 The difficulties begin with actually measuring the indebtedness of Irish landlords. In his work Curtis concentrates on the mortgage papers of the R.C.B. and papers of the land commission to determine the extent of indebtedness on over 200 estates. He, therefore, concentrates on the annual outlay of Irish landlords on mortgage interest as a means of determining the percentage of estimated rental income, based on Griffith's valuation, lost to landlords.

110 While Curtis' work is extremely valuable, there are a number of difficulties attached which one should consider when applying his methods to the post 1879 period. Firstly, the advent of the land war, the withholding of rents, and later the judicial fixing of rents depreciated rental income to well below Griffith's valuation. Therefore, the estimated income of many of the landlords, particularly the larger ones whom Curtis estimated paid around 20 per cent of their income to the R.C.B., may in fact have been much less than he calculated. Secondly, any study of indebtedness must take into consideration the multitude of other bills which a landlord faced in the annual running of his estate and home. No one expense on its own is important. Rather the cumulative effect which all expenses had on gross rental income is what is most important. It is only when one can estimate the net income of a landlord that one can hope to gauge his true degree of solvency. Unfortunately it is not easy, and oftimes not possible to do so. As Curtis rightly claims: 'The powerful forces of neglect and destruction have been at work on Irish records long enough to rule out the chance of obtaining a full accounting of landed wealth and indebtedness in Ireland'.53 For this type of study good estate accounts are necessary; but unfortunately they are all too rare. Even where adequate ones are available they may not necessarily make reference to all interest payments an estate was subject to. On the other hand, where much valuable information is available in mortgage papers regarding the extent of landlords' indebtedness in that particular area, estate accounts are not available to complete the overall picture. What follows attempts to overcome such handicaps. It draws some of its information from similar sources to Curtis' such as the R.C.B. mortgage papers with special reference to landlords from the sample who had borrowed money there in the nineteenth century. It also draws extensively on the Maynooth mortgage papers not only because three of the case study owners had substantial mortgages with the college, but also because the volume of

111 correspondence between the college trustees and the mortgagors reveals the type of difficulties landlords faced when attempting to meet obligations from 1879 onwards. This correspondence also illustrates the deteriorating relationship between landlords and lending institutions in general from the end of the nineteenth century. Finally, what follows draws extensively on the most comprehensive estate accounts available for the sample families in order to show the importance of the cumulative effect of all expenses in depreciating a landlord's net income. The comments of landlords and their representatives from the 1880s suggest that by then the vast majority of Irish landlords were, indeed, heavily in debt. Mortgages were obviously significant in this respect. A Cork lawyer had previously told the Bessborough commission: 'The smaller landlords, many of whom may be and no doubt are just as well disposed to act fairly by their tenants are unable to do so in consequence of the charges and mortgages which they have to meet upon their properties'.54 Samuel Hussey, one of the largest land agents in the south, referred to a specific case of 'a man who has £9,000 a year and owes £80,000'.5:> Another claimed: 'On an estate I am agent over there is a charge of £50,000 and on a rental of over £4,000 a year. 1 find it impossible to keep the interest paid.'56 If one looks to the reports of the Irish Landowners' Convention from the 1880s to its dissolution in 1919, one is immediately struck by the concentration on landlords with mortgage difficulties and the pleas to the British government to do something to alleviate their indebtedness. The Convention was a landlord organisation set up in 1886 because landlords felt they needed to protect their interests and property from the threat posed by the National League, the Plan of Campaign, and government legislation, which they perceived to be infringing upon their tenurial rights. Significantly, the Convention was perhaps the most representative of all the landlord bodies in that it was composed of members drawn from all strata of the landlord class. By the 1890s, it had become

112 frustrated enough in its quest to do something for the plight of encumbered landlords to ask: Why then should we carry on a hopelessly bankrupt business, flaying tenants alive and eternally plunged in scalding waters ourselves, merely for the benefit of some firm of London usurers who are safe out of range of blunderbuss or boycotter.37 Part of the reason that so many landlords had mortgaged their estates in the first place was the custom of providing family charges for younger sons and daughters. The system of family charges may not always have been a substantial drain on all landlord families, but their ubiquity was obviously a source of concern to contemporary observers who accorded them importance in the role they were playing in the class' decline towards penury. Some landlords regarded mortgages as the most convenient means of financing expensive family settlements and thereby ensuring the maintenance of social status. In 1886, the Irish Landowners' Convention report concluded: In a large majority of cases... family charges would be found to have been assigned or mortgaged to outside parties. The various insurance companies and banks, the Church Representative Body, the various religious orders of the Roman Catholic Church as well as countless numbers of private individuals have invested millions of money in the purchase or mortgage of such family charges.58 In his loan application to Maynooth college, Lord Granard had calculated that the running of his estate cost in the region of £1,000 per annum. The only charge revealed was one of £100 per year for the life of Lady Caroline Forbes and a judgement obtained by the marquis of Lansdowne for the principal sum of £5,000.59 However, when the estate was eventually forced into receivership the following decade, it transpired in the court proceedings that there had been 'hidden' charges after all. Incumbrances, in fact, amounted to £20,000, mainly charges to younger children and jointures that Granard had given priority to. The college solicitors even conjectured that rents received by Granard were being applied to pay the interest on loans previously acquired

113 elsewhere.60 Granard's road to insolvency, like that of many other Irish landlords, was made easy walking by faulty laws concerning the registration of estate charges. J.S. Donnelly jnr. points out that 'instead of a single, simple, and complete register for all settlements, mortgages and judgements, separate registers were maintained in different courts and in the Registry Office of Deedsd in Dublin.'61 Donnelly concludes: These circumstances generally produced delays and raised constant obstacles in determining the total amount of the charges against a given estate. Landowners who wanted to borrow money could therefore draw a veil over their already sizeable debts without much risk that this dishonesty would be discovered. And lenders would frequently advance their money without fully knowing whether their investment was a safe one.62 When Lord Cloncurry received his first mortgage of £70,000 from Maynooth, secured on his Lyons estate, he was paying out £1,600 in family charges while rents on the estate were £7,300 per annum. Therefore, family charges alone accounted for 22 per cent of rental income.63 In 1894, Lord Clonbrock's estate was subject to four separate charges of £300 for his daughters. This accounted for 12 per cent of his rental income.64 When Charles Fitzgerald, fourth Duke of Leinster, inherited Carton in 1847, portions payable to his sisters alone amounted to £41,000, while other family charges took the total to over £71,000.6S The fact that he fathered fourteen children led to an enormous increase in the debt burden of the estate, so that when his son, Gerald, inherited encumbrances of over £292,000 in 1887, over half were portions for younger children.66 (See table 5.5.) Georgiana, dowager Countess of Longford, survived her husband, the earl of Longford, who died in 1838, by forty-five years. She was paid a jointure of £2,000 per annum. When she died in 1883, the estate's rental was approximately £21,000 per annum. Thus, her jointure alone accounted for 10 per cent of it. Looking at it another way the money paid to the countess over the forty-five years was equal to around 4.5 years of gross rental income. When

114 Col. Kirkwood inherited the much smaller Woodbrook estate, he also 'inherited' the three elderly sisters that went along with it, all of whom had an allowance of £300 per annum. This, it was claimed prevented the colonel from draining the slope of a hill - one £300 would have sufficed.67 Similarly on the Knox estate in Roscommon, W.E. Vaughan has found that Mrs Knox's jointure took half the rents in the 1850s and that between 1851 and 1856, the dowager Lady O'Brien received over £18,000 from the Inchiquin estate which was the equivalent of 28 per cent of its rents for that six year period.68 In retrospect, providing capital sums to their children often tied up precious assets that landlords could have put to more use had they been able to invest them elsewhere where they could have been more gainfully employed realising 4-5 per cent interest.69 However, custom and status maintenance was an inherent part of landlord life and providing for family members was, in turn, an inherent part of such custom. It was as if the big house was expected at times to act almost as a welfare institution for those who did not have the advantage of being the eldest bom son. For landlords, the family residence, its gardens and demesne were also significant drains on their income. It took a sizeable staff to keep a big house and its surroundings functional. They had to be paid and usually fed. Guests had to be entertained. Dinners were rarely ever anything less than formal and usually lavish affairs. For the peerage especially, shooting parties often involved entertaining a large number of guests over a number of days. To facilitate these parties, game had to be preserved on the demesne often at great expense to the landlord. For fox hunting, contributions had to be made towards the packs of hounds, and horses had to be stabled at great expense. Between 1879 and 1890, the Ormondes, for example, spent over £61,500 on the upkeep of Kilkenny Castle and gardens.70 Between 1895 and 1903, they spent a further £29,600.71 Thus, for the years which accounts are available, this represents an average of almost £4,400 per annum. For 1895 to 1903, the upkeep of stables

115 cost £5,700, repairs and maintenance on the demesne amounted to £5,600, while game preservation amounted to £1,800.72 From 1901 to 1903 expenditure on Headfort was £3,800. To maintain the gardens cost a further £2,100. As Lord Headfort kept a large number of horses for hunting and racing, stable expenditure accounted for £1,100 while game preservation on the demesne cost another £1,100. 73 From 1880 to 1903, the running of Clonbrock cost the family an aggregated £16,500. Of this salaries accounted for around £8,700. The buying of beef cost over £2,100. Coal cost about £1,900.74 Expenditure figures for the demesne are not available for all the years between 1880 and 1903 but for the years that they are they show how costly it was to run. For the years 1882-1898 it cost £72,700 and for 1902-03, £8,800.75 And then there was a variety of other fixed charges - head rents, quit rents, tithe rents, poor law rates, county cess, income tax and sometimes death or succession duties.76 If we take a look at Lord Clonbrock's expenditure accounts during the 1880s we get a clear indication of the myriad of expenses incumbent on running an estate. As well as all of the above, he paid insurances, interest, church funds, contributions towards the upkeep of Clonbrock and Killisallan schools, charitable donations, pensions, estate improvements, salaries, a nursery account, agency fees, stamps and stationery, and settled his bills on account. This did not include the house expenses. Nor did it include cash expended on the stables, gamekeeping, gardens, woods and yard.77 (Tables 9.8 and 5.10 detail Clonbrock's expenditure in these areas for the period 1882- 1903.) In total, Lord Clonbrock spent almost £800 on Clonbrock and Killisallan schools between 1882 and 1898, and donated a further £365 to charity.78 Finlay Dun claimed that on the Fitzwilliam estate education had received 'anxious consideration' in order 'to improve the people and render them, if possible, independent of charity'. Buildings were provided for school houses, sometimes

116 enlarged and improved and teachers’ salaries were augmented. Thus, from 1859 to 1879, Fitzwilliam donated £9,962 towards local education.79 Similarly, the paternalistic Edward Saunderson 'like the industrial magnates of Victorian Lancashire and West Yorkshire...was a patron of local education' sponsoring day schools and Sunday schools 80 although to what financial extent he did so is not known. From 1879 to 1890 the Ormondes spent over £6,000 on schools and donated £2,400 to charity.81 A much more contentious form of estate expenditure was the amount spent by landlords on improving their estates. Prior to 1870, the law presumed that all permanent improvements carried out on an estate, whether by the landlord or by the tenant, belonged to the landlord, unless the landlord had given prior permission and the improvements were registered under the Landed Property (Ireland) Improvement Act, I860.82 Estate accounts show that the landlords of the sample invariably spent at least something on estate improvements each year. Granted, these did not always benefit the tenant and were often improvements carried out on the demesne for the landlord's own purposes. Around 1900, for example, the Saundersons drained and landscaped several acres of reclaimed bog, excavated several small lakes and used the soil to create a hill on the shore of Lough Erne, constructed gravel paths and erected iron railings and gateways, thereby creating a splendid demesne garden.83 But there were also improvements which led to better conditions for workers and tenants. Cottages were sometimes built on estates and the improvement of drainage systems and roads was undertaken. On the larger estates it was generally the custom to give timber and slates for new buildings. On the Fitzwilliam estate, tenants who required help or materials for their buildings or other improvements were enjoined to send applications and particulars of their requirements to the estate office by the first week in February of each year. In 1878, 117 did so.84 Slates and timber were then provided and the tenants carried out the work themselves. Lord Clonbrock

117 made advances to tenants to rebuild dwellings that were repayable over a number of years. At other times he granted rent abatements to facilitate improvements. A 'Tenant farmer' thus wrote to the Irish Times in 1886: [Lord Clonbrock] is a model of supremacy in the ranks of landlordism. He has extended on his property to the amount of £30,000 giving employment to hundreds. He has also paid his tenants for every drain, sewer, bridge or gullet he made on his own farm. Even the lime to lime wash the house has been given gratis by his lordship. He has also contributed largely for the erection of schoolhouses.85

Between 1882 and 1890, Clonbrock spent over £3,200 on tenants’ houses, drainage and fencing. This figure includes loans and allowances to tenants to allow them to carry out these improvements themselves.86 Between 1872 and 1876, the duke of Leinster borrowed £25,700 from the board of works for improvements. In 1879 and 1880, he borrowed a further £8,500 from the same source for the construction of fifty new cottages on the estate.74 In 1881, Finlay Dun claimed: 'Solicitous for the decent, comfortable housing and improvements of the tenantry, the present duke has done much in repairing and building cottages. The old mud and thatched cabins have been removed'.88 The new ones were built of stone or brick and mortar with slated or tiled roofs. They were 24 feet by 16 feet with a small room and pantry partitioned off from the kitchen. Over the two rooms was a loft used for sleeping accommodation and storage.89 Concurrently, Leinster spent an additional £1,000 per annum from his rental account on outbuildings and drainage.90 From 1857 to 1867 Lord Digby expended almost £33,000 on improvements on his Irish estates. Almost £13,000 of this was expended on drainage and land improvement; £14,000 on the building and repairs of tenants' houses and £2,000 on the construction of roads and bridges.91 The existing houses of labourers were replaced with 'well built stone and mortar houses, roofed with slates and timber'.92 For such improvements Digby won the gold

118 medal offered by the Royal Agricultural Society of Ireland for the best labourers' cottages in the province of Leinster on three occasions.93 He also won the duke of Leinster's Challenge cup for the best labourers' cottages in Ireland. At the same time, Digby 'procured the best and most improved threshing machines to work upon his estate as well as mowing and reaping machines' which he let out 'at reasonable rates for the use and convenience of the tenantry.'94 However, it is difficult to estimate with certainty the percentage of rental income spent by landlords on improvements. Where such accounts were available for this study they invariably tended to belong to the larger landowners. Of those from the sample, Earl Fitzwilliam spent an aggregate of £303,000, or six years' gross rental on improvements from 1859 to 1879.95 Lord Dunraven spent around 10 per cent of his rental on improvements from 1858 to 1871.96 Clonbrock invested around 10 to 12 per cent of his rental income in improving his estate in the 1880s. The Powerscourt expenditure on drainage in 1883 and 1884 was approximately 8 per cent of the Wicklow estate's rental while other monies spent on the estate accounted for a further 9 per cent per annum.97 For the years which are available for the Crofton estate in Roscommon from 1850 to 1880, improvements took around 15 per cent of rents received.98 Between 1875 and 1881 improvements on the Leinster estate took approximately 14 per cent of the gross income. (Finlay Dun's figure of 20 per cent is exaggerated.99) On the other hand, the £11,500 which Lord Ormonde spent on drainage from 1879 to 1890 was only about 5 per cent of the rents he received for those years.100 Lord Waterford could afford to spend £6,000 on fox hunting in 1881 which necessitated the financing of the Curraghmore pack and the keeping of up to fifty horses in the stables.101 Yet, in 1881 when his rental was £24,615, he spent only £600 on improvements, one tenth of what he spent on hunting and less than 2.5 per cent of his rental. It would appear that the most Lord

119 Cloncurry expended on improvements, categorised only as 'drainage' in the estate accounts, in any one year from 1881 to 1889 was £167 in 1881, a mere 1.5 per cent of his rental.102 From 1894 to 1897, the troubled Butler of Castlecrine estate collected £10,542 in rents and spent only £47 on improvements, less than 0.5 per cent.1Q3 The difficulty with the above figures is that, with the exception of the Butler estate, they all apply to estates of peers and large landowners. With the exception of Cloncurry, all the other peers spent at least 5 per cent and up to 15 per cent of their rentals on improvements. The figure for Cloncurry gleaned from the available accounts probably does not do him justice. He was an improving landlord. However, trouble on his Kildare estates in 1880-81 which forced him to remove his household and stud to Melton Mowbray,104 and later the operation of the plan of campaign on his Limerick estates may have had a detrimental effect on his expenditure on improvements. But just as the figure of 1.5 per cent probably does not do Lord Cloncurry justice, so the other examples from the case study probably inflate the true average of what rental income was spent on estate improvements in Ireland. W.E. Vaughan found that on nine estates between 1851 and 1880 about 11 per cent was spent on improvements and subscriptions. He claims: 'At first sight this is impressive, especially when it is remembered that Irish landlords were accused of spending nothing'.105 However, he concludes that this rate of expenditure is probably too high because of the presence of large estates in his sample, like those above, 'the sort of estates where high expenditure on improvements was most likely to occur'.106 He found that 'only trifling sums' were spent on improvements on smaller estates such as the Knox estate in Roscommon, and concluded that it was certain that the average for all estates was probably as low as 4 or 5 per cent.107 Cormac O'Grada's investigation of the investment behaviour of Irish landlords from 1850 to 1875 similarly put the figure at 3 to 5 per cent of income,108 while even the Irish Land Committee was

120 contented to claim 5 per cent as being the amount spent by Irish landlords on improvements from 1840 to 1880.109 Yet, despite the unsatisfactory policy of landlords in this area in the post famine period, it is fair to conclude that their efforts were still significantly greater than later Land League rhetoric would claim. Overall, where the work of improvements was a combined effort, it would seem that the landlord was more often than not the instigator and major financier of the operation.110 A survey of 1,826 estates carried out by the Irish Land Committee in 1880 revealed that on 12.3 per cent of the estates improvements on agricultural holdings in tenants’ hands were carried out by the landlord alone, 36.2 per cent were carried out by the tenant, and 51.5 per cent were carried out by both in partnership.111 Even if improvements took an average of only 4 to 5 per cent of a landlord's annual rental income, the point made earlier must be kept in mind that all of these small expenses added up to a large outlay of income. When this outlay remained the same, or even rose, as rental income declined, then the majority of Irish landlords found themselves in financial difficulties from which they had great difficulties extricating themselves. iv The significance of rental decline from 1879 There were essentially three reasons for the decline in rental income in Ireland from the 1880s - agricultural depression, the agrarian agitation which developed in response to it, and the fixing of rents by the land commission under the terms of the 1881 Land Act. Agricultural depression lasted from 1877 to 1886. During this period, the value of Irish agricultural produce declined by 36 per cent, the value of crops by 50 per cent and the value of livestock by around 30 per cent.112 Tenant farmers who had grown used to a degree of prosperity now found that

121 prosperity under threat.113 Landlord ranchers, specialising in the rearing of cattle, would also have felt the pinch. With the power of the newly formed Irish National Land League, officially established in 1879, behind them tenant farmers throughout the country began to call for abatements or ultimately to withhold rents if their requests were denied. Meetings such as that at Irishtown in 1879 revealed to tenant farmers the merits of an organised mass approach. The influence of the Land League soon spread to Leinster and Munster where not all tenant farmers were as impoverished as those of the west. But the Land League was soon being exploited by aspiring local leaders all over the country who saw in the anti-landlord slogans a rallying cry for the populace. As agricultural depression continued the Land League had little difficulties in convincing the majority of the evils of landlordism. By the summer of 1880, there was an average of ninety Land League meetings per month throughout the country.114 The league's policy was to offer Griffith's valuation for a farm. The economic growth of the period from the mid-1850s to the late-1870s meant Griffith's valuation was largely obsolete. But it was a tactical ploy that could be exploited by the league as rents that had risen in the period could be deemed to be rack-rents when compared to the old valuation. The tactics adopted encouraged tenants to tender Griffith's valuation to their landlords for the rent due. If this was not accepted by the landlord they were to withdraw en masse without paying anything. The terrorism which characterised the land war era meant it was extremely difficult for landlords to collect their rents, while the effective propaganda campaign of the league meant that all landlords were painted with the same rackrenting and capricious evicting brush whether they deserved it or not. As the Bessborough report concluded in 1881, the feeling of resentment was 'contagious and has spread far and wide. Even a single case, very likely misapprehended in which a landlord, of previously good reputation in this respect, is thought to have acted unfairly,

122 may largely affect the condition and the good feeling of an entire neighbourhood'.115 For the years 1879-82, the first stage of the land war, information was found on abatements or reductions granted on twenty-eight of the estates in the sample group. It was found that these abatements generally ranged from 10 per cent to 25 per cent, although the majority were 20-25 per cent (see table 5.6). One of the first landlords from the case study to grant abatements was Lord Digby who, on his King's Co. estates in November 1879, granted 20 per cent to tenants whose annual rent did not exceed £10, 15 per cent to those whose rent did not exceed £80 and 10 per cent to those whose annual rent exceeded £80.1,6 In 1879, William Gregory of Coole Park offered abatements of 10-20 per cent on his Galway estate. In 1880, he gave a further 10 per cent, and in 1881, 20 per cent.117 In December 1880, the tenants of Lord Dunsandle offered Griffith's valuation to him. At first Dunsandle refused to accept their terms. However, it seems he soon had a change of heart and towards the end of the month he forwarded a circular to his tenants through his land agent informing them of his new decision.118 In the same month the duke of Leinster met a deputation of tenants who called for 25 per cent reductions. The duke offered only 10 per cent, but compromise was reached at 20 per cent. The duke had informed the deputation: 'He himself had felt the pinch of the times; his estate... was encumbered to the extent of about a quarter of a million of money'.119 The following month, January 1881, tenants were granted 25 per cent reductions on the King Harman estate in Longford.120 Lord Dunalley offered 15 per cent to his tenants on the Cloughjordan estate, but they would settle for nothing less than Griffith's valuation for everybody. The tenants who had secured a reduction to the level of Griffith's warned:

123 We the tenant farmers on the Cloughjordan estate of Lord Dunalley who have been paying rents under Griffith's valuation pledge ourselves not to pay such rents until our brother tenant- farmers who are paying over that valuation shall have settled satisfactorily with the landlord.121 In January 1881, 3,000 tenants of Charles Coote at Ballyfin in Queen's offered Griffith's valuation which was accepted.122 When his neighbour the earl of Donoughmore refused to accept rents at the valuation his tenants withdrew en masse without paying anything.123 What did the granting of abatements or the withholding of rents mean to landlords in terms of rental income during the first phase of the land war, 1879- 82? A study of abatements and rental income on Lord Clonbrock's estate during these years offers some insight. Clonbrock, who could perhaps be a rather patriarchal landlord, does not seem to have suffered to the same extent as many of his landlords elsewhere in Ireland as his rents continued to be generally well paid. Abatements on his estates were not as large as some of those quoted above, but even so they reflect the turbulence and uncertainty of the time. The Clonbrock estate covered £28,246 acres in Co. Galway. In the years 1870-79 his average annual rental income was approximately £11,000. However his estate accounts show that in 1880, 1881 and 1882 he was forced to grant abatements of 2.5 per cent, 5.3 per cent and 4.5 per cent respectively. His average rental income for 1880-82 was around £10,350, a decline of 6 per cent on the 1870-79 average.124 Similarly, on the Pratt estate in Co. Cavan, rental income in 1882 fell by almost 23 per cent from 1881. For the years 1877 and 1878 the average annual rental income on the Ormonde estate was £20,545 (see table 5.3). However for the years 1879-81, the average annual rental income fell to £18,847 representing a decline of around 8 per cent (see table 5). The significance of this decline is that while the Ormonde estate expenditure in the 1870s was, on

124 average, around 35 per cent below income annually, it was only 10 per cent below in 1880 and, in fact, was 8 per cent above in 1881.125 Landlords, who even at the best of times because of their level of indebtedness were finding it difficult to keep afloat, now found it virtually impossible as income declined. The infamous John George Adair summed up their predicament in October 1879 when replying to a memorial of his Queen's County tenants requesting a reduction in rents: The tenants are aware that my estates are subject to charges, taxes, rents, annuities, and incumbrances; these must be paid without reduction. Were I therefore to accede to their request I should be driven to abandon my property. This I am not prepared to do, and consequently cannot grant their request.126 The economic situation of Irish landlords deteriorated even further following the introduction of the fair rent provisions of the Land Purchase (Ireland) Act 1881. Over the forty years or so that the fair rent provisions of this act were in operation they greatly ameliorated the situation of Irish tenants but greatly added to the problems of landlords with the result that they were universally opposed by the latter. The Irish Land Committee might have been unfair to the sub-commissioners responsible for fixing rents when in a pamphlet in 1882 it claimed that here we have thirty-six amateurs, with no professional training, and, in many cases, with but little practical knowledge of land; they go north, south, east and west; they visit farms at a gallop, and at the most unsuitable season of the year...and so wonderful is their intrinsic knowledge that next day they assess the value of each farm with the utmost minuteness,127 but it captured landlords' antagonism towards what they perceived as a lack of rationale in the lowering of rents. Certainly no case from the sample group was found to suggest any of the 100 landlords benefited from the regulation of rents. Effectively the regulation of rents came to mean the lowering of them. From when the sub commissioners began their operations in August 1881 to the end of the first judicial term in December 1902, they dealt with

125 342,019 cases in which judicial rents were fixed (see table 5.7). The former rent of these holdings was £6.93 million. The judicial rent lowered it to £5.48 million, a decrease of 20.8 per cent.128 When work began on second term rents the policy of lowering them remained unaltered. In 87,835 cases where rents aggregated £1.77 million in 1902, these were reduced to £1.45 million, thereby representing a further reduction of 5 per cent.129 If we look at some specific cases, we can see how such reductions affected individual landlords from the sample. In 1882 Evelyn Philip Shirley succeeded his father at Lough Fea in Co. Monaghan. The 'right' to increase his rents on succession by 10 per cent, as had been the tradition on the estate in the past, was questioned by a man named Caragher who refused to pay the increase. Under the provisions of the 1881 act Shirley took Caragher to the land court to have a fair rent fixed, but the commissioners reduced Caragher's old rent by 15 per cent. After an appeal by Shirley, the reduction was confirmed. This then encouraged 100 other tenants on the estate to seek fair rents. They were all granted reductions ranging from 15 to 20 per cent.130 In 1883, Ambrose Congreve agreed to 15 per cent reductions with the majority of his Waterford tenants without recourse to the land commission courts. However, six tenants who were not satisfied went to the courts and succeeded in getting reductions of 17 per cent.131 In July 1887, twenty-nine tenants on the marquis of Waterford's Wicklow estate sought fair rents. The poor law valuation of their total acreage was £265. Already their old rent was significantly below this at £233. They were prepared now to offer only £101, while the landlord demanded £379. The commissioners reached a compromise by setting the rent at £192.132 In December 1887, the commissioners reduced rents on the King-Harman estate in Longford by 33 per cent.133 In February 1888, they reduced rents on the Pratt estate in Co. Cavan by 26 per cent.134 In its early years the land commission found itself inundated with appeals from landlords who questioned the level of rent reductions given on

126 their estates. By August 1882, the number of appeals to be dealt with was 2,611. Within a year, the number had risen to 7,215.135 Of these 1,024 were disposed of in 1882 and 2,565 the following year; but a report of the land commissioners claimed in 1883: We have found it physically impracticable as well as incompatible with the proper discharges of our business in Dublin to hold courts of appeal in the country oftener than, at most, every alternate week. A considerable time must elapse before all the pending appeal cases can be decided.136 It was rare that a landlord's appeal against new rents was successful and even where he might have been successful in having the judicial rent raised, it still invariably remained below the old rent. In the appeals heard up to August 1883, the aggregate old rent of all cases was £35,556. The rent fixed by the commissioners lowered this aggregate to £28,360. The appeals were only nominally successful raising the new rents to £29,075 but still keeping them around 20 per cent below the original.137 Bitter disillusionment amongst landlords, therefore, became the order of the day. John Madden of Hilton Park told the Cowper commission that the rents on his estate had not been raised since before his father's time. Referring to £2,300 from 'his own pocket' that he had spent on improvements, he complained that he had been 'defrauded' of every penny of it because his rents had been cut down below the poor law valuation.138 In light of further reductions granted in the 1890s, the commander of the northern division of the R.I.C. wrote in 1896: 'The feeling on the part of the landlords is decidedly veiy bitter, they maintain that their property and their interests are not sufficiently safeguarded while undue advantages are being secured to tenants'.139 What he termed 'the enormous reductions' given lately by the sub commissioners caused 'real consternation' among landlords because they threatened 'to wipe away the margin of income left them to live on'.140

127 From a landlord's point of view, the perceived hopelessness of their situation was summarised in a letter from the marquis of Dufferin to Edward Carson in 1897: The fact is the whole thing is such a mess, and every principle not only of justice but of practical good sense, has been so thwarted by Mr. Gladstone's blundering legislation, that the situation is irremediable. An enquiry into the proceedings of the Irish land courts might result in showing the blind, capricious and inconsistent way in which they work, and, perhaps, that their general scale of reductions has been excessive; but I should fear that the ultimate upshot of this would not very much improve our position.141 Also of significance at this time was the fact that the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Act 1882 resulted in £1.76 million in arrears being extinguished.142 In real terms the loss to landlords was approximately half of this figure. Under the terms of the Act the Irish Land Commission could make an order for the payment to or for the benefit of the landlord of a sum equal to one half of antecedent arrears. Thus of the £1.76 million extinguished, approximately £767,000 was recovered.143 Eveiy landlord from the case study suffered as a consequence, some a great deal more than others. In total, £135,222 was extinguished in arrears on the estates of the 100 sample landlords at a time when some of them desperately required it to meet charges. Amongst the worst to suffer was Lord De Freyne who had £16,500 extinguished on his Roscommon rental (of which he recovered £5900) and almost £2,000 off his Sligo rental (of which he recovered £760).144 The King-Harmans had £7,500 extinguished (of which they recovered £3,600). Sir John Leslie had £10,200 extinguished on his Monaghan rental (of which he recovered £4,600) and almost £3,000 on his Donegal rental (of which he recovered £1,200).145 A loss of £500 in arrears to the relatively solvent Edward Saunderson in Co. Cavan,146 £10 to John Keane in Waterford or £9 to the earl of Mayo in Kildare meant very little. But for estates such as Lord De Freyne's, which were heavily encumbranced, and whose rental declined as a result of conditions from

128 1879, the loss of thousands of pounds could only be detrimental in the long term. In the midst of all these compulsory reductions and extinguishing of arrears came a renewal of agricultural depression from the mid-1880s and further calls by tenants for abatements. Agitation this time was accompanied by the plan of campaign. The operation of the plan was to succeed in securing more sizeable rent reductions on estates on which it was adopted. However, it is also probable that its adoption on one estate influenced other landlords in the locality to grant abatements in order to ward it off from their own. An article entitled 'A plan of campaign: a memo, for the country' first appeared in the United Ireland on 23 October 1886, a few weeks before the November gale-day. It encouraged tenants on estates to stand together; to resolve what abatement they would demand; to elect a managing committee to take charge of the half year's rent should the landlord reiuse their demand (to be known as the estate fund); and as individuals to accept no alternative settlement which was not given to every tenant on the estate. Laurence Geary has found that in total the plan of campaign was adopted on 203 estates, and as it was repeated on a few estates there were 210 instances of it in all.147 He was able to locate the commencement date of 157, or 75 per cent, of cases. Of these seventy-nine began in November-December 1886; sixty-one in 1887; twelve in 1888; three in 1889; and two in 1890.148 In some cases the campaign lasted only a short time, usually because the landlord agreed almost immediately to tenants demands. On the Jackson Bennett estate in Cork (1,851 acres), the tenants demanded 40 per cent reductions in December 1886 and were granted them immediately.149 In February 1887, the tenants on the Glascott estate in Wexford demanded 25 per cent reductions and were granted the same that month with both sides agreeing to pay their own legal costs.150 On Lord Dillon's huge estate in Mayo tenants

129 demanded 25 per cent reductions in November 1886. The landlord granted 20 per cent in January 1887, paid all legal costs and reinstated evicted tenants.151 In some cases the campaign stretched on for years without either side being willing to give in. One of the most notorious cases was that of the absentee Clanricarde estate in Galway. Here the tenants demanded 40 per cent reductions in November 1886. The landlord remained intransigent as did the tenants with the result that the estate was subjected to years of agitation. The dispute was not finally settled until the estate was sold in 1913.152 However, the duration of a campaign usually lay somewhere in between. Of the forty-two estates in table 5.8 which were used to illustrate the range of reductions granted on campaign estates, the commencement and settlement date was found on thirty-one of them.153 Of these, thirteen were settled within three months by the landlord granting acceptable reductions; six were settled between four and six months of commencement; three took from seven to twelve months; while the remaining eight took up to two years. The forty-two estates in table 5.8 were chosen because they satisfy the criterion set out at the beginning of this work that a big house had to be located on an estate of 500 acres or more for it to be typical of a landlord's residence. As approximately one third of the estates which Geary found the plan of campaign to have operated upon do not feature in works of reference such as Burke's or De Burgh's, this suggests they were very small estates and therefore not typical of what this work deals with. The forty-two were estates where definite information was available on the level of reductions granted by landlords. The tenants on these estates were granted at least 15 per cent reductions. On twenty-four (57 per cent) of the estates, tenants received rent reductions of 15 to 20 per cent. And reductions were usually not the only concession forced upon the landlord. More often than not he was also faced with legal costs and the restoration of evicted tenants.

130 With regard to the sample estates, it was found that the campaign was put into operation on all or part of fourteen of them. Most of these were already heavily encumbered like the Granard, King-Harman and Dunsandle estates. They were affected in varying degrees. Worst affected was probably Lord De Freyne who was unfortunate to have four outbreaks of the campaign on his Roscommon estate between 1886 and 1890. In each case De Freyne was forced to grant substantial reductions and this came on top of the large amount of arrears he lost under the 1882 act. The first stage of the campaign began on his estate in December 1886 when the tenants initially demanded reductions of 20 per cent.154 De Freyne at first held his ground but the growing agitation on his estate undoubtedly forced his hand and put the tenants in a stronger bargaining position for by the beginning of 1888 he had granted 25 per cent on the year's rent due to May 1886, 30 per cent on rents due to May 1887, paid all legal costs and reinstated fifty-six evicted tenants.153 However, by the following October agitation had broken out once again. This time De Freyne settled more quickly giving 30 per cent reductions on rentals under £50 and 15 per cent on rentals over £50.156 Having got the hang of things the tenantry seem to have made an annual event of looking for reductions just before the November gale- day. In 1889, they demanded 30 per cent and accepted 15 per cent reductions all round, while in November 1890 De Freyne was again forced to grant 30 per cent reductions to non-judicial rent holders.157 In Galway Lord Dunsandle's tenants demanded rent reductions of 25 per cent in December 1886. Three months later Dunsandle agreed to 20 per cent and to reinstate evicted tenants and pay all law costs. This reduction was on judicial rents which already stood at Griffith's valuation.158 In December of the following year, following much the same policy on the De Freyne estate of annual demands for reductions, the tenants on the Dunsandle estate refused offers of 20 per cent and withdrew lodging the rents once again under the plan of campaign, less 45 per cent.159 Two other Galway landlords from the sample

131 were put into a similar position. In May 1887 Lord Clonbrock gave 15 per cent reductions having fought the tenants’ demands for 25 per cent from the previous December.160 The following February Sir William Ross Mahon granted 45 per cent reductions, paid all law costs and cancelled all arrears.161 The plan only lasted one to two months on the Marquis Conyngham's Mount Charles estate in Co. Donegal. Here in November 1887 the tenants asked for a 'reasonable reduction' (unspecified) in rent which was subsequently given the following January.162 Again, Conyngham reinstated evicted tenants and paid all legal costs.163 The marquis of Waterford's Portlaw tenants were more demanding and succeeded in gaining 50 per cent reductions in 1888.164 Similarly on portions of their estates W.H. King-Harman was faced with reductions of 33 per cent; the earl of Courtown 25-30 per cent in Clare; Lord Digby 25-30 per cent in King's Co.; and Henry Bruen and Arthur Mac Murrough Kavanagh 25-30 per cent in Carlow.165 The fact that landlords were being forced to grant further reductions at a time when the commissioners were lowering tenants' rents could only have compounded their financial predicament. In November 1887, the campaign was adopted on the Pakenham-Mahon estate. In the following September the landlord granted 15 per cent reductions to judicial rent holders and 20 per cent to non-judicial.166 In Co. Longford the much troubled Lord Granard granted 30 per cent on judicial and 40 per cent on non-judicial rents in late 1886.167 Developments from the early 1880s to the end of the nineteenth century led to significant declines in rental income on landlords' estates. Some landlords suffered more than others. For the five year period from 1875 to 1879, Lord Cloncurry had collected aggregated rents of £17,835 on his Limerick estate. During the first stage of the land war from 1880 to around 1884, aggregated rents on the estate fell by almost 46 per cent for a similar five year period. From 1885 to 1889, during much of which the plan of campaign was in operation on the estate, aggregated rents remained around 43 per cent

132 below the 1875-79 figure. While only £983 was outstanding in arrears for the years 1875-79, £9556 was outstanding from 1880 to 1884, and £8,719 from 1885 to 1889.168 More typical would seem to be the case of Lord Clonbrock. During the troubled years of the first phase of the land war 1880-82, Clonbrock had granted an average annual abatement of £450. In 1882, £730 had been struck off in arrears under the Arrears Act of that year.169 Between 1885 and 1887 the plan of campaign was in operation on part of his estate. During 1885 the abatement figure on the estate rose dramatically to £1,350, exactly three times what it had been annually between 1880 and 1882. There was a further rise in 1886 to £1,700 followed by a slight decline in 1887 to £1,403. His rental income was accordingly affected. As we have seen his average annual rental income in the 1870s was around £11,000. During 1880-82 this average had fallen to £10,350, a decline of 6 per cent. While it remained around 6 per cent below in 1885, it fell to just over 9 per cent below during both 1886 and 1887 (see table 5.14). Between 1888 and 1903 the annual average income remained 4 per cent below the 1870s figure. The situation was much similar on the Ormonde estate where we have seen that the average annual rental income for 1877 and 1878 was £20,545. This annual average declined by 8 per cent during the years 1879-81. There was an upturn in 1882 and 1883 when the average for these two years rose to 7 per cent above the 1870s figure. This seems to have been a result of the payment of arrears (see table 5.16). However, this was to mark a high point. From 1884 to 1890 there was a huge increase in arrears due (from £9,071 in 1883 to £24,302 in 1890) and average annual rental income for these years fell to 8 per cent below the 1870s figure (see table 5.16). The worst period was from 1884 to 1886, in the midst of renewed economic depression, when the average annual rental income fell to 9.5 per cent below the 1870s figure.

133 Between 1895 and 1893 (after which the estate was sold) the annual average rental income remained 6 per cent below the 1870s figure (see table 5.16). Similarly on the Crofton estate in Roscommon the annual average rental income for the five years available 1872-3 and 1876-78 was £5,813 (see table 5.2). In 1880, there was a decline of 6 per cent on this figure. While the average annual rental income received between 1881 and 1884 was about 1 per cent above the 1870s figure, it fell to 14 per cent below for the years 1886-90 (see table 5.11). The rental decline on the Butler of Castlecrine and Mahon of Castlegar estates was much higher. By 1878 the rental income of the Butler estate was £4,300 per annum. Accounts which are available for 1895 to 1903 show that the average annual rental income for these years was £3,350, a decline of 22 per cent on the 1878 figure (see table 5.13). Finally, rental income on the Mahon estate at Castlegar in Galway fell from £11,000 in 1881 to £7,300 in 1886, a decline of 34 per cent.170 Declining rental income and growing indebtedness thus characterised an Irish landlord's lot from the 1880s. In many respects landlords had only themselves to blame. In the period after the famine, they had done very little to improve their position. They did not exploit their estates by raising their rents to a level that would have given them a proportionate share in the economic prosperity of the 1850s to mid 1870s. In a business sense, Irish landlords were relatively lethargic. Rather than adopting rigorous efforts to exploit their estates, they preferred to accept a situation in which rents were generally well paid and on time. Nor did landlords consolidate their future by reinvestment in their estates. W.E. Vaughan claims that had they reinvested 20 per cent of their rents it would 'have made an enormous impact'.171 They did not. Furthermore, the economic boom of the mid-1850s to the 1870s encouraged landlords to mortgage their estates perhaps more readily and extensively than they had done in the past. They continued to honour landlord tradition and custom by involving themselves in expensive family settlements. Some spent lavishly on

134 the renovations of their houses, or a variety of lesser but equally as draining extravagances. Ordinary everyday estate expenditure had to be met. Salaries had to be paid, charitable donations had to be made, the peerage had to go to London for the season. Few could have envisaged what lay ahead. As Donnelly points out: 'The relations between landlords and tenants in County Cork at the beginning of 1877 appeared so calm that the violent land war which erupted within less than three years could only have been foreseen by a great leap of the imagination'.172 This was just as true for most of the country. The agricultural depression which began in the late 1870s marked the beginning of a long period of economic difficulty. Some agricultural prices did not reach their 1876 level until 1914.173 The prolonged nature of the agricultural depression made it impossible for landlords to revive their pre-mid 1870s position. The land war was essentially a response to this agricultural depression. While landlords, at least those from the sample, had weathered similar depressions in the 1860s, this storm was different. It was accompanied by a mass movement whose leaders were intent on uprooting landlordism. Rental income was subjected to revolutionary changes. Rents had been withheld in the past, but never under such a concerted policy; reductions had been granted but never forced so extensively and successfully as during the land war and the plan of campaign. The continued agricultural depression also meant that the land courts invariably lowered rents after 1881. More importantly, the prolonged agricultural crisis weakened the traditional perception that land was safe collateral. Landlords found themselves without the alternative option of borrowing that in the past had been used to bolster their socio-economic positions.

135 v 'No capitalist will now lend on Irish estates' When, during the course of the Bessborough commission, Baron Dowse asked a small landowner: 'Is not the tenant of a farm...at the mercy of his landlord?', he received the following reply: Upon my word, I think the balance is very little in favour of the landlord. Supposing a crisis, which every man of ordinary sagacity might foresee I think the landlord is in the worst position of the two, for how can he meet his payments, interest, annuities, jointures on his property, and his other outgoings - if the Land Leaguers induce the tenants to refuse to pay their rents.174

In 1891 Lord Inchiquin made a speech in the House of Lords 'on behalf of men who were ruined'.175 He claimed to have been in a landlord's house in Ireland which had previously been occupied by a family in a very comfortable position with an income of some £3,000-£4,000 per annum. Now that same house was occupied by a lady who 'on account of difficulties' was receiving a mere fourteen shillings per week, 'just enough to keep body and soul together from the mortgagees'.176 The land war and agricultural depression had ensured that Irish land was no longer regarded as safe collateral. Worse still, mortgagees who panicked during the land war began to call in their mortgages as landlords temporarily defaulted. This development distinguished the agricultural depression from the one in the 1860s. In the past, when landlords found themselves in financial difficulties, they could hope to extricate themselves through the mortgaging of part of their estates. When the economy returned to normal and rents were once again being paid, they could meet their interest repayments without a great deal of hardship to themselves. The economic depression of the 1880s was, however, different in the respect that it closed all avenues of borrowing. Instead of landlords being able to secure mortgages to tide them over the bad times, financial institutions lost confidence in Irish land and refused en bloc to consider lending on its strength.

136 They, in fact, began to call in their loans thereby putting increasing pressure on financially beleaguered landowners. As early as 1880, Samuel Hussey, one of the largest land agents in the south whose firm collected rents annually amounting to £250,000,177 wrote to the duke of Argyll: Already the insurance offices, the greatest mortgagees in Ireland, have declined to lend any more money, and all negotiations for loans have been broken off....I have bought £3,000 per annum worth of land, and no one will lend £5,000 on it.178 The following year, he wrote to The Times: TSio capitalist will now lend on Irish estates as they naturally argue if the government forcibly reduces rents 25 per cent in an exceptionally good year, what in a bad year?'179 A Cork landowner later told the Cowper commission that 'bank accommodation' had 'ceased altogether'. He was distressed by the fact that 'when men wanted money most they had not the least chance of getting it'.180 When Lord Granard ran into difficulties with his mortgagees, the trustees of Maynooth College, he tried the old landlord expedient of acquiring a loan to pay off a loan. This time he realised it was no longer so easy. In 1888, his solicitors wrote to the trustees: Acting under instructions received from the earl of Granard, we have been engaged for some time past in trying to procure a loan to pay the arrears of interest due to the trustees of the college, but owing to the present state of affairs, it is almost impossible to borrow money in any landed security in Ireland, and we should certainly have failed in our endeavour to do so, had not relatives of our client come forward to help him in the present emergency. 1 R 1 Similarly, at a later stage, in December 1906, Lord Leitrim, through his London based solicitors, R.H. Beauchamp and Orr, began to make enquiries regarding a £12,000 loan to meet part of the estate duties payable on his father's death. What was then left of his Leitrim and Kildare estates were to be used as security.182 The solicitors tried the Scottish Amicable Society, Equitable Life Assurance Society, and the R.C.B. in turn, but to no avail. In January, 1908, the

137 solicitors were eventually forced to write to his lordship informing him: 'It would be impossible to get the Scottish Amicable to lend the money', adding that in fact 'it would be veiy difficult to get anyone to lend on the security of the land'.183 Such insurance companies had been calling in their debts since the 1880s and forcing estates into receivership in order to do so. The fact that mortgagors could not meet repayments meant their estates, either in part or in full, were sometimes placed in receivership. A return for 1890 shows that there were almost 3,000 estates, or portions of, under the control of the land courts of Ireland.184 The majority of these had been placed there since 1879. The earliest placement from the sample was part of Marquis Conyngham's estate in Donegal, upon which there were 124 tenants, and for which he himself had petitioned in 1878. There were three other estates along with it, including two belonging to the earl of Desart filed by two separate individuals, T.H. Preston and Francis Poe in 1882 and 1889 respectively. The third belonged to Arthur Mac Murrough Kavanagh and was filed by the owner in 1879 (see table 5.9). In the return, petitions were found to have been lodged by twenty-eight different financial institutions, the vast majority of these being insurance/assurance companies such as the Scottish Equitable, Edinburgh Life Assurance Co., Caledonian Insurance Co., West of England Assurance Co. etc. as well as banks including Bank of Ireland, Provincial Bank and Munster Bank. The R.C.B. filed against the Countess of Kingston in 1889. Landlords filed against each other. And as the sample shows, landlords placed their own estates in receivership presumably before the mortgagees declared them bankrupt and sold under less favourable terms. By 1894, £850,000 of the Scottish Widow Company's estimated £1.2 million invested in Ireland had been repaid.185 And as Lord Leitrim found out, financial institutions and bodies such as the R.C.B. at home were equally as waiy of continued investment in Irish land. Between 1871 and 1875, the R.C.B.

138 had approved 120 loans. By 1877 it had invested some £3.5 million in Irish estates, which reflected the confidence in Irish land at this time. But the agricultural depression of the late 1870s and the land war which followed discouraged the finance committee's further investments in what was now regarded as a high risk area. From late 1877 to 1879, the R.C.B. sanctioned no new loans. Thus, from an early stage, it had obviously become aware of the threat which agricultural depression posed to landlords attempting to meet interest repayments on the strength of rental income. Similarly, between 1886 and 1895 a period which was again characterised by agricultural depression and the operation of the plan of campaign, no new loans were sanctioned. By 1886, the amount which the R.C.B. had invested in Irish land was the same as it had been in 1877.186 Growing arrears had left the R.C.B. fearful of this form of investment. In 1886, arrears stood at £35,000;187 by 1890, they had risen to £81,000;188 and by 1901 to £135,000.189 From 1885, in all cases in which a full year's interest had become due upon mortgages, receivers or agents under deed were appointed over the estates.190 The money invested on Irish land had now become 'another subject of serious anxiety' to the R.C.B.191 Its report of that year concluded: In the present state of uncertainty as to the laws which may be enacted with reference to land tenure, it would be rash to speak positively as to what may, or may not, be the loss on these investments. The Representative Body can only repeat that they hope there will be no ultimate loss of capital, though some loss of interest may be expected.192 Maynooth college found itself in a similar position. From the early 1880s, it sanctioned no further loans, but instead continued to press its mortgagors. In December 1880, E. Murphy, agent to the Stewart estate in Dunfanaghy, Co. Donegal wrote to the bursar: You will no doubt be aware that even in the north of Ireland the tenants have combined against paying their rents....I do not think it advisable in the present state of the country to resort to measures of coercion. Under these circumstances it occurs to me

139 to ask you if you will permit the interest which will be due on 1 st to stand over, without penal interest, until say the end of February.193 In December 1882, Rev. Andrew Boylan on behalf of the Maynooth trustees wrote to Sir A.J.R. Stewart regarding accruing interest calling on him 'to send...immediately a cheque for same as very great inconvenience has been caused to the college by the non-payment of this money at the time it fell due'.194 (This amount is not specified but it was reported in the same correspondence to have been 'long overdue'.) It was around this time that Lord Granard, whose mortgage of over £91,600, was the largest the college had sanctioned, began to face similar difficulties. His agent informed the college bursar in mid-1881: 'I can assure you I have had the greatest difficulty in trying to get rent from the tenants, as even the tempting offer of 20% was not availed of by many, and the consequences is that the arrears have largely increased'.195 The difficulties facing the estate at this time are evident in another letter between the same correspondents written later the same year. It read: [Re. arrears] even if the tenants should pay, the money will all necessarily go to the college and meet the outgoings of the estate for rent charges, board of works instalments, taxes etc., which are very considerable and the result will be disastrous as regards the premiums and policies on his Lordship's life for which no provision can be made unless the college sees their way to lower the rate of interest pending a sale of the property.196 The Granard mortgage required annual interest repayments of £3,900 per annum. This was at a time when annual rents brought in only £9,000 a year which means interest repayments alone accounted for about 43 per cent of them.197 From 1881, the estate became noted 'for its disturbed state'.198 In July of that year, Granard's agent wrote to the college bursar: I can assure you that I have had the greatest difficulty in trying to get rents from the tenants, as even the tempting offer of 20 per cent was not availed of by many, and the consequences is that the arrears have largely increased.199

140 By 1883, the college trustees had not once been paid punctually since May 1880, while tenants continued to demand up to 70 per cent abatements and refused to pay rents.200 The president's report of 1886, referring to accumulated interest arrears of £3,000 stated that this is so serious a question as effecting the running of the college that I must beg of your lordships to mark out what we should do if this financial embarassment continues, and it is almost certain to continue, and even to increase.201 The National League had by now established the plan of campaign on the estate having become aware of Granard's financial difficulties. Tim Healy said he hoped to see Granard's mortgagees 'squeezing him out as you would squeeze out a lemon or an orange'. He told the tenantry: 'When they throw away the skin, I hope to see you give it a kick and send it to its proper place'.202 At that stage, Granard had been forced to grant 20 per cent abatements. Under the terms of the Arrears Act of 1882, he had around £11,000 extinguished in arrears of which he recovered £4,200 from the Irish Land Commission, representing a loss of £6,800. Arrears of interest now stood at £3,500, so the board of Maynooth trustees resolved that their solicitors be instructed to file a petition for the sale of Granard's estate in the landed estates court.203 Growing indebtedness and pressure from mortgagees therefore forced Granard's hand. He would have to sell, but he would do so under his own terms. He pre-empted the trustees' petition of sale by entering his own, arguing that the main reason for doing this was that the carriage of sale could be more economically conducted by his own representatives. The courts ruled in his favour allowing Granard and his representatives to negotiate the sale of the estate with the tenantry.204 Landlords, like Granard, had therefore to face simultaneously the prospect of falling rents, increased indebtedness and the calling in of mortgages. As would happen in the modem day, an economic entity without the power of recourse to borrowing to alleviate cash flow problems, found itself

141 on the brink of bankruptcy. And all of this was compounded by the fact that it was happening during a period of sustained depression. Besides individual landlords approaching their financiers for abatements, landlord organisations appealed to politicians and the government to do something to alleviate their plight. In 1883 a deputation wrote to Gladstone pointing out: 'There are few (if any) sources for borrowing money on land in Ireland now open and...trustees, assurance societies and private lenders are steadily refusing to advance upon mortgages on Irish estates'.205 In 1886, the executive committee of the Irish Landowners' Convention passed the following resolution: That Irish landowners are... entitled in justice to a direct pecuniary grant in compensation for the losses that have been inflicted on them and that in any case indirect relief should be afforded 1. by granting them advances...to pay off mortgages and family charges and 2. by readjusting the incidence of certain public charges, rates and taxes.206 In order to do this the Convention claimed that advances should be made to landlords by the state at the lowest possible rate, advances being so proportional to the rental as to make them perfectly secure.207 Their pleas fell largely on deaf ears. The face of British politics was beginning to undergo radical change. Politicians were increasingly becoming aware of the need to woo the expanding electorate leading them to sympathise more with the masses than the besieged minority of landlords. As early as 1881, Lord Dufferin's awareness of this was evident in his comments to the duke of Argyll: The tendency of the extreme section of the Liberal party is to buy the support of the masses by distributing among them the property of their own political opponents, and it is towards a social rather than a political revolution we are tending.208 In the same year that Dufferin wrote to Argyll, Gladstone introduced his Land Act of 1881. For some of the landowners in the sample group, particularly those with very large estates, this act offered them an opportunity

142 to extricate themselves from some of their financial difficulties by enabling them to sell off parts of their estates to meet debts. The chapter which follows traces die sale of the 100 estates under the various land acts from 1881 onwards and the subsequent consequences which sales had both on landlordism and the big house in Ireland.

143 Chapter 6

Land acts, land sales and increased taxation, 1881-1950 i Land acts from 1881 to 1896 The Land Act of 1881 was more significant for the way in which it infringed previously sacrosanct landlord rights than it was for the transfer of land which took place under its terms. It legalised what had become known as the three fs - it gave fixity of tenure to a tenant on his holding as long as he paid his rent and observed his covenant; a fair rent proviso provided for the establishment of independent tribunals, set up by the Irish land commission, to determine fair rents on holdings; and a tenant was allowed free sale of his interest in his holding, thereby compelling the landlord to compensate the tenant for disturbance in his occupancy and for any improvements carried out by him on his holding.1 This amounted to the recognition of the dual ownership of land. The terms of the act empowered the land commission to make advances to tenants for the purchase of their holdings as well as enabling it to purchase land for resale to the tenants. The amount advanced was restricted to three quarters of the purchase price. It was to be repaid in an annuity of 5 per cent over thirty-five years.2 In its objective of promoting land sales, the Land Act of 1881 was largely unsuccessful. Between 1881 and 1884 only 731 tenants purchased their holdings. Only four landlords from the sample sold parcels of land amounting to a mere 964 acres, or 0.04 per cent of what they owned. For this they received £16,929, an average of about £18 per acre. Arthur Mac Murrough Kavanagh received £4,000 for holdings in Carlow; John Leslie received £4,069 for holdings in Monaghan; Lord Rathdonnell received £6,500 for holdings in Meath; and James Wilson received £1,500 for holdings in Longford.3 Why did so few landlords sell and so few tenants buy? Quite simply, terms did not suit either. An indication of this is seen in a return of the land

145 commission in 1884 which stated that it had been asked to negotiate the sale of estates belonging to Col. King-Harman from the sample and the marquis of Lansdowne. King-Harman's estate in Longford had thirty-one tenants and a rental of £4,146.4 He asked for twenty-three years' purchase of the rental which would have brought him £95,358. The tenants were not willing to meet his terms and, indeed, with the exception of two of them, the remainder 'stated that they were unable to pay the necessary one fourth of the price'. No sale was therefore effected.5 The situation was similar with the marquis of Lansdowne who wanted to sell the holdings of 309 tenants with a rental of £4,146. Again, 'the owner considered the offers made generally by the tenants insufficient and the matter dropped'.6 It may be logical to conclude that in the middle of an agricultural depression tenants like those on the King-Harman estate genuinely could not raise the capital to provide the one fourth deposit. It may also be because, as Commissioner Lynch later claimed in 1912, the bitter agrarian and political agitation of the time closed the door of the Irish land market to all bidders except the occupying tenants.7 Therefore, as Lansdowne realised, this put the tenants in the strongest bargaining position. It was inevitable that there was going to be a gulf between what they regarded as a fair price and what landlords required. As no one else would buy, and as rents remained low, tenants would be in less of a hurry to secure a purchase than indebted landlords would be to secure a sale. The two acts which followed in 1885 and 1891 were more progressive, largely because their terms were more conducive to sale and, perhaps more significantly, because landlord indebtedness had risen considerably through the 1880s making sales more of a necessity. The incentives which landlords might have wished for were still not there for them to dispose of all their lands, but the machinery was in place to allow them to sell outlying portions of their

146 estates to supplement dwindling incomes or to continue to offset debts which were being called in. The 1885 act also stimulated tenant interest in purchase. Under the 1881 act the tenant had to raise one quarter of the purchase money as a guarantee of his solvency and ability to meet repayments of the annuity. The 1885 act allowed the tenant to obtain the full purchase price from the land commission. The annuity was lowered to 4 per cent and the repayment period was extended from thirty-five to forty-nine years.8 The idea was that the government would provide the tenant purchasers with an amount (termed an 'advance') at as low an interest rate as possible to enable him to purchase his holding. The loan was paid directly to the landlord by the land commission. The annuity was the tenant purchaser's annual repayment on the loan. Under the 1885 act, it was divided into two parts: interest payments and sinking fund payments. The interest payment under the 1885 act was 3 1/8 per cent. The sinking fund payment (the other 7/8 per cent) was the portion which was intended to clear the purchaser's loan. It was realised by investing sinking fund payments until the fund had accumulated enough interest to pay off the capital of the original loan.9 The purchase money was advanced to the landlord in cash. However, on the down side one fifth was retained by the land commission as a guarantee deposit. Interest at 3 per cent per annum on this deposit was payable to the landlord but where a mortgagee had first priority, the mortgagee received the interest. Thus the landlord was the loser in such cases, and as the deposit could be applied to make good any default by tenant purchasers in the payment of their annuity, there was the possibility the landlord would never realise the full value of the estates he sold. Despite this, the Ashbourne Act promoted land purchase on a much larger scale than the Land Act of 1881 had done. Almost £10 million was advanced between 1885 and 1891, allowing 25,317 tenants to become

147 purchasers. Fifteen of the owners from the sample entered the market under the terms of this act. Between them they sold 65,282 acres with a rental of £46,784 for £830,422 (see table 6.1) This represented an average of 17.75 years on rentals.10 It was a relatively low price compared to the twenty-three years' purchase that King-Harman had sought under the 1881 act or the average of 25.4 years' purchase that was to be available under the Wyndham Act. Furthermore, the average price per acre had fallen from almost £18 under the 1881 act to £12.7 reflecting the effects which economic depression and the land war had had on the value of land. However, there were a number of very significant sales amongst the group of vendors from the sample illustrating the fact that many landlords were attempting to come to terms with the extent of their indebtedness (see table 6.1). Lord Waterford sold 14,287 acres in Waterford, Longford and Londonderry for £263,458, representing 18.6 years' purchase on his rentals. The duke of Leinster sold 19,173 acres in Kildare for £246,401, representing 18.9 years’ purchase. Viscount Monck sold 7,845 acres for £74,745 or 16.1 years’ purchase. On the whole, however, the majority of these sales concerned large landowners who sold small outlying estates representing only a small percentage of their total acreage. The earl of Dartrey, the majority of whose estate was located in Monaghan, sold 2,184 acres in Waterford for £12,971. The earl of Drogheda sold 1,549 acres for £18,394. Lord Castletown sold 4,093 acres for £57,015 and Sir John Leslie sold a further 1,344 acres for £17,959. Other sales were even smaller. Lord Longford, for example, sold only 34 acres for £900. Sales under the Land Act of 1891, known as the Balfour Act, followed essentially the same pattern - large landowners lopped off parts of their estates, and with a couple of exceptions did not sell significant tracts. The 1891 act changed the terms and mechanics of sale. Landlords were

148 now no longer paid in cash but in specially created land stock. As with the 1885 act the annuity remained at 4 per cent payable over the same period, but the annuity was divided into 2.75 per cent interest on the stock, 1 per cent on the sinking fund and 0.25 per as a cash reserve which became known as a 'county percentage'. This county percentage was intended for the building of labourers' cottages.11 Under its terms twenty-four landlords from the sample sold 86,849 acres for £675,287 (see table 6.2). Again the plummeting value of Irish land is reflected in the fact that by now these landlords were getting, on average, £7.8 per acre. The acreage sold by individuals varied. Waterford continued to dispose of his property selling 4,359 acres for £45,273. Granard sold the residue of his estate, 6,333 acres, for £50,332. Rathdonnell, Leslie, Dartrey, and Power O'Shee continued selling small pockets of land. Between them they sold only 286 acres for £5,581. Perhaps more significantly, some of the largest and more solvent landowners in the sample entered the market at this time. Between 1891 and 1900, Lord Conyngham sold 1,227 acres for £5,627; in Wicklow, Lord Fitzwilliam sold 12,758 acres for £98,810; in the same county Lord Wicklow sold 11,869 acres for £44,089. The Land Acts of 1885 and 1891, therefore, began the process of the transfer of land to tenant proprietorship. But this process was still in the embryonic stage. Under these acts, the landowners in the case study sold a total of 152,131 acres for £1.5 million between 1885 and 1905. This represented about 6.9 per cent of the 2.2 million acres they owned in the 1870s. What in effect happened was that the early acts offered a respite to landlords. In some cases, the likes of the earl of Granard was forced to sell virtually all of his rented property in order to meet his charges. In other cases landlords whose indebtedness had risen as a result of developments from 1879 lopped off parts of their estates to keep them solvent. In the past, they could have secured loans to prevent them from having to do so. But with the

149 reluctance of investors to involve themselves in Irish land, this was no longer possible. The duke of Leinster sold 28 per cent of his estate. The burden of heavy family charges and increased incumbrances affecting the estate, took their toll. But his case illustrates how land sales were utilised at this time to keep the creditors from the door. In 1887, for example, the fifth duke of Leinster sold £128,400 worth of his land. Except for £940 all of this was used to cancel debts.12 The following year, £39,000 was realised in sales, but again £14,000 went to paying off loans from the Office of Public Works. £6,600 was all that remained when other charges were met.13 On his death in 1893, the Freeman's Journal was right to proclaim of the fifth duke: 'His income was not as large as one might be inclined to think from the extent of his estates and the great position he held. Family charges and the lessened value of land cut off much of his ducal resources'.14 During the land war the King-Harmans had given a 25 per cent abatement on rents, the courts then reduced them by 33 per cent, and the plan of campaign on the estate resulted in another 33 per cent reduction. A further £7,500 was written off in arrears. All of this happened at a time when they had a £195,000 loan from the R.C.B. requiring interest repayments of over £8,000 per annum. It is therefore hardly surprising that they sold 22.5 per cent of their estate, or 16,405 acres under the 1891 Act. In total seven out of the fourteen landlords from the sample who had loans to the R.C.B. sold property under the 1881, 1885 or 1891 acts (see table 6.3) while Lord Granard was forced by the trustees of Maynooth to sell his estate under the 1885 and 1891 acts. The sale of the Granard estate proved to be a slow and cumbersome operation which in many ways embodied the difficulties which other landlords wanted to avoid. Lord Granard may not have been happy to sell his estate under the terms of the Land Act of 1885, hoping that better terms would be available under future legislation. His level of

150 incumbrances were so high that he may have felt the sale of the estate would leave little for future investment. This was certainly the opinion of P.A. Chance, the college's solicitor, who thought that Granard was 'so heavily involved that a sale of his estates would not produce sufficient to discharge his liabilities', and that Granard had 'therefore no interest whatsoever in expediting a sale'.15 But he had no choice. The fact that he had defaulted on his interest repayments to Maynooth college led to a receiver being appointed to the estate, the sale of which then became inevitable. The quality of most of Granard's land was deemed to be 'very bad indeed'.16 The land commissioners consequently concluded that because the holdings were so poor and existing economic depression would likely lead to greater impoverishment among the tenants, they could not make a large advance to enable all to purchase.17 At the same time, Granard's agent contended that land commission interference in the lowering of existing rents meant the estate would not be able to meet interest repayments until sales were concluded.18 In 1889, after much toing and froing, purchase agreements to the amount of £99,980 were reached between landlord and tenants. The agreements were then submitted to the land purchase commission for its acceptance. The commissioners accepted, without reductions, purchase agreements amounting to £38,605. They offered a further £34,367 for what tenants had agreed to pay £42,947. They refused to buy at any price what tenants had agreed to pay £9,814 for, and held over for consideration purchase agreements amounting to £8,614.19 Thus, the commissioners were prepared to pay only £72,972 for what the tenants had agreed to buy at £81,572. Out of the £72,972, they would retain £15,562 for fifteen years, being the one fifth deposit. The latter was to be invested and the interest thereon paid to the college whereby Lord Granard would lose out once again. By 1892, only £52,094 of the purchase advances had been sanctioned, of

151 which £10,876 was retained, leaving £41,188 for allocation, the bulk of which went to Maynooth.20 At the same time non-purchasing tenants continued to get sizeable reductions of up to 70 per cent on existing rents in the land courts.21 This naturally made those who had not purchased reluctant to do so. Those who could not secure advances immediately looked with hope to the future but did not pay rents in the meantime. The college solicitors later pointed out: 'When the tenants heard of an early prospect of purchase... they became reluctant to pay any rent'.22 All of this meant the Granard estate did not have the finances of old to maintain it. Inevitably, this led to it becoming run down. The local parish priest, Fr. Conffey, wrote to the college president in 1891: 'The timber is taken away in cartloads everyday; the laurels and young trees were dug up and sold in the neighbouring fairs and markets and desolation seems to be the order of the day there'.23 The remainder of the Granard estate, approximately 6,300 acres, was sold under the Land Act of 1891 for £50,300.24 There is no evidence that part of this money went to Maynooth. However the fact that the balance on the loan of £91,600 stood at £31,400 in 1903 (see below) and that £41,000 of the money secured under the 1885 Land Act went to the college suggests that around £20,000 of this money also went to Maynooth. An encumbered landlord like Granard needed to realise as much capital as possible from the sale of his estates. Four fifths, as under the Ashbourne Act, was not always going to be enough. The reluctance of the land commission to sanction advances to tenants who had agreed purchases with Granard on the basis that the land was of poor quality did not further his cause. But the land commissioners perhaps rightly assumed such land would not sustain repayments of the advances. The purchase money eventually secured by Granard was insufficient to cover his debts to Maynooth. By 1903, the balance due to college trustees on the Granard loan stood at £31,400 plus £3,200 in interest.25 The fact that the

152 college authorities were aware they could not hope to realise what was owed to them is evident in a statement laid before the trustees in 1906 which read: By agreement entered into by the trustees of Maynooth and the Countess of Granard, it was agreed that in as much as the purchase monies resulting from the sale of the residue of the estate would be insufficient to pay the monies still due to the trustees on foot of their several encumbrances... that the purchase money of the balance of the estate should be handed over to the Countess of Granard on foot of her charge of £5,000 which came next in priority after the several incumbrances vested in the trustees of the college of Maynooth.26 It would seem that the trustees of the college, therefore, wrote off around £34,000 realising that such a sum would not be secured on the sale of the residue of the Granard estate. Under different circumstances the sale of the Granard estate would most likely have meant the sale of Castle Forbes. This was to happen to many other landlord homes from the 1920s when, as we shall see, the compulsory nature of the Free State Land Acts reduced the amount of land necessary to maintain a big house below a viable level. However, Castle Forbes survived the decline of its supporting estate below a viable level largely because of an astute marriage alliance in 1909 between the eighth earl and Beatrice Ogden Mills, an American heiress, who was responsible for doing up the interior of the castle in 'great splendour'.27 Four landlords from the sample had entered the market under the terms of the 1881 act; fifteen under the 1885 act; and twenty-four under the 1891 act. This gradual progression reflected the growth in landlord indebtedness as charges remained constant at best, rental income simultaneously declined and mortgagees called in loans. Landlords were more inclined to sell as indebtedness increased and as the terms of the various acts improved. The 1881 act was not conducive to large scale sales because tenants had to raise one quarter of the purchase money and were reluctant to meet the landlords' asking price. The 1885 act was more successful but its guarantee deposit of one fifth did not suit landlords with large charges to meet. The 1891 act had the

153 disadvantage of replacing cash sales with land stock. Nevertheless, it can be seen that as land stock increased in value more landowners came onto the market, thus illustrating that they were more likely to sell if the proper conditions prevailed. In 1893, the highest price quoted for land stock was 97.33. Only 2,391 loans were applied for that year (see table 6.4). In 1898 when it reached its highest point of 114.2, 6,201 loans were applied for. In total the land acts from 1870 to 1896 resulted in the purchase of 73,805 holdings of 2.5 million acres for £24.78 million (see table 6.5). While these land acts provided the basis for the larger landowners in the sample to sell off parts of their estates in order to improve their solvency, it would seem their terms were not favourable to the majority of landowners, especially smaller ones, who needed to secure a price that would leave them with enough capital for future investment. From 1886 to 1902, the prices available, averaging 17.3 years on rentals was not adequate to provide this.28 At the same time it was clear that landlords would sell if they were provided with the necessary incentives. In 1887, Sir Henry Gore Booth of Lisadell claimed: I would be willing to sell every acre, it would be a great saving to me if I could get twenty-three years purchase on the ordnance valuation, one fourth added. If I could sell at anything like a fair price it would be a great advantage to me.29 Around the same time, Lord Cloncurry claimed that 'every landlord would sell all the outlying portion of his property' retaining only the demesne and such land they could utilise themselves. He maintained he had conversations 'with nearly all the large landed proprietors' and they were of the same opinion. Of himself, he said: 'Personally, I would gladly sell all outlying properties, and retain only that part of my estate within a day's drive or journey of my residence'.30 John Madden of Hilton Park, Monaghan, told the Cowper commission: If I could get what I consider to be the value of my property and get rid of my house and demesne, on the improvement of which I spend thousands of pounds, if I could get that back I would shake 154 the dust off my feet and leave the country and be glad to do so, because I think prosperity in this country is quite out of the question.31 ii The Land Acts of 1903 and 1909 In March 1902, George Wyndham stated in the House of Commons that they had reached 'the end of the landlords who are prepared to sell for a capital sum which can be advanced under the existing law'. Towards the end of that year, in October 1902, the Irish Landowners' Convention adopted a resolution stating that: The landowners who have not hitherto sold are, as a body resolved not to part with their estates on terms under which, in addition to the loss already incurred, their present incomes would be substantially reduced.32 The Convention claimed that solvent landowners would not part with their estates under the terms of the legislation then in place. They needed to be guaranteed 'a price which invested at 3 per cent [would] yield an income approximately equal to the present net income'.33 The Landowners' Convention which had so ardently fought for the property rights of landlords in the past was now approaching the stage where it realised the need for a more consensual approach to the whole land purchase issue. And there was a growing body of what could perhaps be termed more pragmatic landlords who were prepared to open negotiations with tenant representatives on the subject. Amongst these were Lords Mayo and Dunraven from the sample group. They were instrumental in the establishment of the Irish Land Conference of 1902-03 in an attempt to bridge the gulf between what landlords would settle for and what tenants would be prepared to offer. Dunraven chaired the conference in December 1902.34 The report of the conference was published in January 1903. It was signed on behalf of landlords by Dunraven, Mayo, William Hutcheson-Poe and Nugent T. Everard, while John Redmond, William O'Brien, T.W. Russell and 155 T.C. Harrington signed on behalf of the tenants. Significantly, on the 7 January the executive committee of the Landowners' Convention, (including Henry Bruen , J. M. Wilson, And Lords Clonbrock, Cloncurry and Drogheda from the sample) adopted a minute welcoming the report 'as a valuable addition to the various suggestions that have been made for removing the grave difficulties of the Irish land question'.35 As the Landowners' Convention saw many similarities between the report and resolutions which it had adopted at its October meeting, it claimed the report's recommendations were 'likely to be widely acceptable to the landlords'.36 Chief amongst these was the conference's recommendation that the owners should receive some recognition of the fact that selling may involve sacrifice of sentiment and they have already suffered heavily by the operation of the Land Acts, and that they should receive some inducement to sell.37 The influence of the report was perceptible in the act framed by Wyndham which became the first to make purchase a realistic goal for Irish tenants while simultaneously providing the inducements for landlords to sell. What were these inducements? Firstly, the entire purchase money was paid in cash to landlords rather than in land stock as under the 1891 Land Act and, indeed, as would be reverted to under the 1909 Land Act. Although sales rose under the 1891 act, payment by land stock was not regarded as having the same degree of security as payment in cash. Sales fluctuated as land stock rose or fell. There was no guarantee that the nominal price of the estate sold would be realised by the encashment of the stock at a later stage. Payment of the entire purchase price in cash alleviated this type of landlord apprehension.38 Secondly, Wyndham and the British government realised they had to encourage landlords to sell by giving them confidence that the capital they would secure would allow them to move from a rental income to an investment income. This was provided in the form of a 12 per cent bonus awarded on the sale of estates. It had the effect of inflating the price of sales based on the

156 number of years' rental. Under the 1891 Act, land was purchasable for the equivalent of 18.1 times the yearly existing rents in 1901. The provision of the bonus inflated this average price to 25.4 years' purchase, a much more realistic figure as regards the value of land as landlords perceived it (see table 6.7). The Land Act of 1903 was administered by a new department of the Irish Land Commission known as the Estates Commissioners. Landlords and tenants were still allowed freedom in agreeing upon the purchase price, but now sales were no longer limited to individual tenants or holdings but applied en bloc to a whole estate. When the parties agreed to work under the system, they could only fix the purchase price between certain maxima and minima laid down by the act which were termed 'zones'. In effect, this meant that the purchase price agreed was such that the annuity payable by the tenant represented a reduction of 10-30 per cent on his formal rent in the case of second term judicial rents and 20-40 per cent in the case of first term rents.39 Thus, inducements were also granted for occupiers to purchase their holdings as they were guaranteed that their annuity would be appreciably less than their old rents. On the other hand the minimum price fixed by the zones was noticeably higher than the average price paid for land under the previous acts; the government had effectively raised prices,through subsidisations by the general United Kingdom taxpayer, for the benefit of Irish landlords and protected them against the bargain-hunting tenants who had refused to meet landlords' demands during the extended land war. It is possible to estimate the amount of land sold by the landlords from the sample using the return of advances under the Land Acts of 1903 and 1909. However, these advances after the passing of the 1909 Act do not differentiate under which act advances were made to individual landlords. It is therefore better to take a look at the terms of the 1909 Act before calculating the acreage sold by the sample owners. And one needs also to consider at this stage the setting up of the Congested Districts Board.

157 The Land Act of 1909 reverted to the system of payment in stock rather than cash. A new guaranteed 3 per cent stock was to be issued to vendors of estates at its face value. The rate of purchase annuity was raised to 3.5 per cent payable over sixty-six years. The bonus continued to be paid in cash, but it was no longer paid at the flat rate of 12 per cent. Instead it was calculated at rates varying inversely with the number of years purchase of rent which the sale prices represented. The maximum rate was set at 18 per cent of the price.40 The reversion to the old system of payment by land stock replacing payment by cash had an adverse affect on land sales. Landlords did not like payment in depreciated stock, while tenants disliked higher annuities. Nevertheless, sales under both acts very much revolutionised the ownership of land in Ireland. By the end of March 1921, 9,459 estates comprising 270,396 holdings on 9.03 million acres had been sold under these acts for £85.9 million (see table 6.6). What of the sample owners? The returns of advances under these acts provide much valuable information as to how much of their estates the 100 landlords sold from 1903 to 1921, when they sold them and how much they received (see table 6.8). The records of advances begin from the 1 November 1903. Essentially, therefore, the first advances recorded in table 6.8 are for the years 1904 and 1905. These two years represented the high in both terms of acreage sold and advances received. Significantly* the estates first onto the market belonged largely to landlords who were heavily indebted and who had already sold under previous acts.41 In 1903 the Leinsters sold 41,000 acres for £786,000. They had already sold over 19,000 acres under the Ashbourne Act. This left them with around 8,000 acres. The King-Harmans eventually sold 70,000 acres for approximately £625,000 under all the acts, almost their entire estate. The heavily indebted Lord Granard had only 340 acres left to sell after the 1891 Act. He disposed of this for £3,300. Similarly, Lord Crofton, whose rental income had declined greatly during the land war and who had sold 5,300

158 acres for £43,500 under the 1891 Act sold the remainder of his estate under the Wyndham Act (approximately 5,000 acres) for £67,500. In his case the financial advantage of selling under the 1903 Act is quite perceptible - he received £24,000 more for almost the same acreage than he did under the 1891 Act. The prices which were available enticed even the more solvent landowners onto the market. Thus, at least a portion of all the estates in the sample was sold under the terms of the 1903 Act. Some owners like Earl Fitzwilliam, who spent more time on his English estates, were willing to take the opportunity to rid themselves of the greater part of their Irish landed investments under what were the most favourable terms likely to be on offer. From 1903 to 1909 Fitzwilliam sold over 53,000 acres for almost £470,000. He had already sold almost 13,000 acres under the 1891 Act. Similarly the earl of Longford sold around 9,000 acres for £145,000 during the same period. He had sold only 34 acres under the Ashbourne Act. His estates do not seem to have been adversely affected by the land war to the same extent that other estates in the sample were and the fact that he had also substantial urban property in Dublin meant he was not forced onto the market earlier. Like many others he could not resist the terms of the Wyndham Act to sell about half of his tenanted acreage. By the end of 1907 landlords had realised that the terms on offer under the Wyndham Act were the best they could hope for and that the Liberal government which had replaced the Conservatives in 1906 would be more in alignment with the Irish parliamentary party and the farmer interest.42 Alvin Jackson claims that when Birrell introduced his bill, which slightly modified would become the Land Act of 1909, 'Irish landlords reacted by rushing to lodge their purchase agreements before the bill became law'.43 The increase in advances for 1908 as opposed to 1907 in table 6.8 reflects this to some extent. Amongst those landlords to sell was Somerset Saunderson who had inherited

159 the Castlesaunderson estate from his father, Col. Edward. Because the sale was initiated formally before 24 November Saunderson benefited from the terms of the Wyndham Act. Within three years 9,400 acres of the estate had been sold for £98,000.44 Lord Dunalley was also anxious to sell at this time. In January of 1909, his agent, C.H. Maude, wrote to the estates commissioners claiming that Dunalley's anxiety was for the benefit of his tenants: Lord Dunalley is most anxious the tenants should get the benefit of the agreement, as they get off a considerable amount of rent, and a considerable reduction in their annual payments; but if the agreement falls through they must pay up the rent...45 In July, however, the estates commissioners concluded that Dunalley was unwilling to go on with the negotiations for sale of his Kilboy estate 'unless he can rely on receiving the bonus on the purchase money at the rate of 12 per cent'.46 Dunalley, too, had realised that the terms which had been on offer were the best landlords could hope to secure. However,advances for only 2,300 acres amounting to £11,700 were found for Dunalley between 1903-25. This acreage represented only about 11 per cent of his total estate. His unwillingness to sell or perhaps the reluctance of his tenants to meet his asking price (his estate had been badly affected during the land war) may help explain the continued agitation on his estate during 1919-23 and the numerous attacks on his home at Kilboy.47 From 1909, land sales as a whole slowed down considerably compared to what they were in previous years. From November 1903 to end of December 1909 around £7.2 million was advanced to owners in the sample compared to £4.3 million for the years 1910 to 1925 inclusive. Only 435,798 acres were sold in the latter sixteen year period, an average of just over 27,200 per annum, in comparison to 480,652 from effectively 1904 to 1909 inclusive, an average of over 80,100 acres per annum. These figures do not include case study estates bought by and sold through the Congested Districts Board.

160 The board had been established under the 1891 Land Act to relieve the problem of congestion especially along the western seaboard. The act defined a congested district as one: Where at the commencement of this Act more than 20 per cent of the population of a county or in the case of Co. Cork, either riding thereof, live in electoral divisions of which the total rateable value, when divided by the number of the population, gives a sum of less than £1.10s.0d for each individual, these divisions shall for the purposes of this Act be separated from the county in which they are geographically situated, and form a separate county...48 398 electoral divisions located in Counties Galway, Leitrim, Mayo, Roscommon, Sligo, Donegal, Kerry and Cork were subsequently deemed congested areas. The 1896 Land Act empowered the board to get advances from the land commission for the purchase of estates from landlords instead of having to buy them out of board funds.49 In 1899, the board purchased the 93,000 acre Dillon estate, with 4,000 tenants and a rental of £20,000 per annum for £325,000.50 £290,000 of this was paid to the landlord. The remainder went to the redemption of charges and the purchase of tenancy interests. This marked an important stage in the development of the board as the Dillon estate was four times larger than the whole of the seventeen estates purchased by the board until then.51 The 1903 and 1909 Land Acts further extended the powers of the board, making more money available and conferring authority upon it to compulsorily acquire land for the relief of congestion.52 By the time the board was dissolved in 1923 it had purchased 874 estates, totalling 1.77 million acres for £8.9 million.53 Six owners from the sample had all or parts of their estates bought and redistributed by the board They were Lords De Freyne, Harlech, Ventry, Digby and Clonbrock, the King-Harmans of Rockingham and the Gregorys of Coole. In 1923 Clonbrock sold about 11,700 acres to the board for £117,600.

161 Around the same time the board resold 2,800 acres of the Coole estate for £23,700.54 The largest redistribution of a sample estate concerned that of Lord De Freyne in Roscommon, Sligo and Galway. By 1920, almost the entire estate of over 29,000 acres had been sold through the board 11,000 acres were sold without alteration of boundaries or additional land; 256 holdings on 6,200 acres were rearranged but not increased in value; 346 holdings on 6,500 acres were rearranged and increased in value; 201 holdings on 3,400 acres were enlarged with parcels of untenanted land; almost 2,000 acres were provided for migrants and herds made redundant by the purchase of the estate; and 500 acres were set aside for evicted tenants to be reinstated.55 Declines in sales after 1909 especially may be put down to a number of factors. Firstly, applications for sale were greater than the government's ability to deal with them. As early as 1904 the Irish Landowners' Convention was expressing concern about the great disparity between the amount of advances applied for under the Act of 1903 and the financial arrangements made for meeting them. In December a delegation met with George Wyndham and proposed to him 'that the arrangement with the Treasury should be revised and sufficient funds provided to prevent delay in closing cases'.56 If this was not possible they proposed that arrangements should be made with the land commissioners to collect the interest applicable under the purchase agreements and to pay it over to the vendors 'as soon as possible' in order to enable the latter 'to meet the interest on charges on his estate and have the means of support for himself and those dependent on him'.57 Finally, they argued that the clearance of title which was causing so much of a delay should be expedited by providing additional staff.58 But Wyndham explained to the delegation that there was little prospect of more than five million pounds per annum being provided in the first three years.59 Once again, the landlord/vendor became the loser, having to accept a relatively low rate of interest on the purchase money

162 in lieu of his rents from the date of purchase agreements, while he continued to remain liable, until the distribution of the purchase money, for the full annual charges payable in respect of his mortgages and other encumbrances. By 1905 the Irish Landowners' Convention was pointing out that 'at present vendors may have to wait for four or five years from the lodging of the purchase agreements to until the distribution of the purchase money and the payment of the bonus'.60 In 1910 it claimed that as regards the landlords who refused to sell: It should be remembered that sale entails on the vendor an immediate and serious loss of income and a delay of several years before he will be paid his purchase money and the bonus, and so long as these two conditions exist it is not reasonable to complain if some owners cannot see their way to sell.61 It was not exaggerating. When William Mahon tried to sell part of his Castlegar estate under the terms of the act in 1910, his agent wrote back to him: In the list of pending cases prepared by the Estates Commissioners early this year, there was £18,287,000 in front of your estate.... As the Treasury are at present allowing only 2 millions a year for all cash cases, it will, of course, be some years before your estate is reached.62 As late as 1923, there were 432 estates awaiting advances under the 1903 and 1909 Acts of £3.86 million. These estates were composed of 15,248 holdings totalling 474,000 acres. It was not until 1928 that most of these were disposed of. By that year there were only eleven estates to be dealt with and £104,000 to be advanced.63 It had been a long wait for those landowners concerned. With regard to Birrell's Act, the Landowners' Convention prophetically proclaimed in 1910 that 'the act has been framed not to promote and encourage but to wreck and kill voluntary land purchase'.64 Because tenants offered less as their annuity would be higher and as additional losses would be sustained because of the fluctuations in government stock and a decreased bonus, the Landowners' Convention calculated that a landlord who sold under the 1909 Act would lose four to five years purchase as compared to what had been

163 obtainable under the 1903 Act.65 In a confidential memo, to the Congested Districts Board, one of its permanent members, Sir Henry Doran, claimed in 1917: 'Negotiations for the purchase of estates or holdings have practically ceased because landlords will not sell their estates for land stock1.66 The agricultural boom of the war years, 1914-18, had in fact proved an incentive to landlords to retain their lands and farms. During World War I, advances had been stopped for the purchase of holdings and the board had ceased purchases with the result that the allocation of lands previously acquired proceeded at a very slow rate. Table 6.8 shows that the advances made in 1917, for example, to the sample owners amounted to only £29,700 for around 7,300 acres. In 1918, a further confidential report of the sub committee on land purchase which had been set up by the Irish Convention the previous year, pointed out the gravity of the situation for those who had agreed to sell prior to the outbreak of war but whose negotiations had been subsequently suspended. Total purchase money in all such cases amounted to £4.5 million.67 At the time the value of stock stood at over 80, but in consequence of the war and the issue of government stocks bearing higher rates of interest, it fell to under 60.68 Any landlord who had not received payment would suffer a heavy loss if he had to sell it at post-war value to pay off charges. An example was cited referring to the case of a landlord who agreed to sell for £10,000 to be paid in three per cent stock, the charges on whose estate amounted to £3,000. If at the time he agreed to sell his estate, the stock stood at 80, he would have to sell £3,750 worth of stock to redeem those charges. If by the time the purchase money was paid over the stock had fallen to 60, he would have to sell £5,000 worth.69 Sir Henry Doran claimed: The operations of this act under voluntary proceedings have been most unsatisfactory to vendors of estates, many of whom have sustained very great and unexpected losses by reason of the depreciation of land stock between the date of acceptance of Board's offer and the date of distribution of purchase price.70

164 It happened that some estates which were solvent when vendors accepted the board's offer became insolvent before the purchase price was paid owing to the depreciation of the market price of land stock in the interval. The case of Sir Roger Palmer's estate in Mayo was cited by Doran to illustrate this point. When Palmer accepted the board's stock offer of £292,000 in 1911 the market price was 85. By 1916, this market price had fallen to 59.25 involving a depreciation in cash value of £75,190.71 There was one other reason why land sales fell off after the initial surge onto the market to secure the terms on offer under the 1903 Act - some landlords had sold as much land as they wanted to or had to. The remainder they wanted to maintain as farm land or in some cases as tenanted land and they were not prepared to sell it unless they were forced to. This was particularly true of the more solvent landlords in the sample like Lord Famham who seems to have sold less than 1,000 acres before the 1920s or like Lord Clonbrock who despite any setbacks he may have suffered from the 1880s was reluctant to sell the family estate. In an article in the Morning Post in 1903 Clonbrock drew a distinction between those who had sold and those who had not. His reluctance to sell may perhaps be reflected in his 'hereditary ties' theory which he outlined in the article: At the one end of the scale we may suppose a landowner, who is wearied out by the uncertainty and trouble to which he is exposed, who has no particular sentiment for his property, perhaps from having purchased it not so long ago, while freedom of contract still existed in Ireland, or perhaps from never having resided on it. At the other end we make take a man who has had but little trouble from the land courts, who has constantly resided on his property, and whose life is therefore identified with it; who is attached to his tenants, as such by strong personal and hereditary ties, and who has always entertained the most friendly relations with them. It is obvious that such a man would require a far higher inducement to sell than the former, who would be glad to escape the precarious position of an Irish landowner on almost any terms.72

165 And there were others like Lord Cloncurry or Lord Ashtown who themselves had become substantial farmers or graziers and who wanted to continue as such by retaining as much land as that required. In 1908 Lord Ashtown claimed that since the passing of the various land acts 'a landlord has now only two inducements to remain in Ireland, 1) farming his own land and 2) sport'.73 There was also the option of letting his land on the eleven month system as another form of income. Ashtown himself was making £1,330 per annum in this way in 1908.74 Thus for these reasons, untenanted grasslands were valuable especially to any landlord who wished to remain resident in the country. Ashtown summarised the importance of untenanted land to a landlord like himself as follows: If he [the landlord] sells untenanted land he sells a property, which includes not only the income or annual profit he may be deriving from it, but also his proprietorial rights, which are often of great value.75 A return for 1906 calculated that there was approximately 2.6 million acres of untenanted land in Ireland at that time.76 Between them the 100 landowners from the sample were the rateable occupiers of approximately 240,000 acres with a rateable valuation of around £120,000. Of this 50,500 acres was demesne land with a valuation of £37,500. Without exception all the landlords in the case study supplemented demesne land with untenanted land in the vicinity (or often much further afield) presumably for farming purposes. Section 3 of the Wyndham Act had facilitated hard pressed landlords retaining their demesnes and other untenanted land in their possession by allowing them to sell such lands to the commissioners and then repurchasing, thereby setting themselves up, or simply allowing them to continue as substantial farmers.77 The land commission could advance a maximum of £20,000 to each landlord wishing to avail of those terms under section 3(2) of the act. During the period 1903-21, landlords repurchased 355 demesnes

166 containing in all 122,104 acres, an average of 343 acres each, for £1.9 million. Of this amount, £1.68 million (88 per cent) was advanced by the commissioners, the balance of £252,524 being paid in cash by the owners.78 Of the landlords in the sample, eleven repurchased demesnes and remortgaged untenanted land totalling 11,100 acres for £182,000 (see table 6.9). At a conservative estimate, this was quite a steal. Based on information from the returns of advances, fertile land sold in counties such as Meath, Kildare and Tipperary had been rented at around fifteen shillings per acre. In 1908, the average number of years purchase was 25.4 years' rental. Based on these figures the 11,100 acres would have realised around £211,500 had they been tenanted. In 1909, Lord Wicklow sold and repurchased 1,960 acres from the commissioners. This was composed of the 728 acre Shelton Abbey demesne as well as untenanted land in surrounding Ballinacor, Coolboy, Kilbride, Killeagh, Marsh, Raheen, Shelton and Sheepswalk. He paid the maximum price allowable to landlords as an advance to do so i.e. £20,000.79 Again, if this had been tenanted land it could have been priced at around £37,000. W.H. Mahon of Castlegar was able to continue his farming business by repurchasing 1,650 acres from the land commission for £20,000 of which £16,000 was advanced in April 1913.80 Had this been tenanted, it could have been priced at over £31,000. The estate commissioners were prepared to pay Lord Dunraven £153,365 for his estate including demesne and stud farm, 'it being a term of proposal that the vendor should enter into an undertaking to repurchase the demesne and other lands in his occupation at the sum of £20,000, which sum to be advanced by the land commission'.81 In July 1906 he was therefore advanced £20,000 to repurchase his 667 acre demesne and 518 untenanted acres.82 This was not quite the bargain the others above had received. The purchase price was around £2,500 below what it could have been sold for as tenanted land.

167 iii The Free State Land Acts 1923-33 The Land Acts of 1903 and 1909, while making a major contribution to the transfer of lands from landlord to tenant, did not end landlordism in Ireland. Prior to the enactment of the 1923 Land Act, there were approximately 114,000 holdings on 3 million acres which had still not been sold.83 In the sample group there were landowners such as Lord Famham who by 1926 still retained 11,000 tenanted acres in Co. Cavan.84 He had been reluctant to convert from landed income to invested income. Untenanted land and demesne land had been largely undisturbed by the 1903 or the 1909 acts. By 1923, 352,000 acres of untenanted land and 116,000 acres of demesne land had been sold under these acts.85 This total of 468,000 acres was about 2.1 million acres short of the total acreage of untenanted and demesne land returned in 1906. Granted, much of the untenanted land would have been turbary or suitable only for mountain grazing, but between what was suitable for farming and the 3 million acres of tenanted land which remained unsold, there was still a substantial amount of land in the hands of Irish landlords in 1923. The Free State land legislation had its roots in the land war which had erupted coinciding with the revolutionary period, an issue that will be dealt with in much more detail in chapters 9 and 10. Tenants on unpurchased estates were reluctant to meet rental payments as they had been in the 1880s. Writing in 1922, Patrick Hogan, minister for agriculture, claimed that for the last couple of years, there has been practically a general strike by tenants against the payment of rent to landlords. Generally speaking the cause alleged was inability to pay due to the depression in agriculture. Possibly the desire to force land purchase has given its chief strength to this no rent movement.86 In April 1923, landlord representatives pointed out that only on about 10-15 per cent of estates were rents paid up to date. On others they were anything from one and a half years upwards in arrear.87 In the same month,

168 Hogan contended that while tenants are not paying rents, and while they consider that they need not pay rent in future, they don't want a land bill, except on terms which would amount to confiscation.88

Indeed it was largely with confiscation in mind that the terms of the Hogan Land Act of 1923 were formulated. Under its terms: All tenanted land wherever situated and all untenanted land situated in any congested districts county and such untenanted land situated elsewhere as the Land Commission shall before the appointed day, declare to be required for the purpose of relieving congestion or of facilitating the resale of tenanted land, shall by virtue of this Act vest in the land commission on the appointed day.89 There were limited exceptions such as land purchased under previous land acts, home farms and demesnes. A home farm was defined as a farm 'used for the convenience of the owner's residence and...not merely as an ordinary farm for the purpose of profit'.90 But all exceptions, other than public authority or corporation lands, could be disregarded by the land commission if it declared any holding to be important in the relief of congestion.91 This emphasised the commission's power to compulsorily acquire whatever land, whether tenanted or untenanted, it saw fit to relieve congestion. But it was also largely theoretical. In practice, a landlord who was determined to retain land despite the 1923 Act could do so by exploiting appropriate loopholes, particularly those which came under the heading of exceptions. Under the financial terms of the act, an automatic method of fixing the price payable to the landlord for tenanted land was provided which was commonly referred to as the 'standard price'. Landlords were entitled to the equivalent of fifteen years' purchase. A purchase annuity set at 65 per cent of rent and capitalised at 4.75 per cent left the landlord with 13.68 years’ purchase and an annual income of £61.12s per £100 rent. From a tenant's point of view, the new standard purchase annuity amounted to a reduction of 35 per cent of a

169 first term judicial rent or a reduction of 30 per cent on a second term. The government provided a contribution of 10 per cent of the price bringing the landlord's total income to 15.05 years’ purchase or £67.15s per £100 of rent. The advances to vendors were made in 4.5 per cent land bonds to be accepted by the vendor as the equivalent of the corresponding amount of purchase money. In the case of every tenanted holding to which the act applied, rent and arrears of rent due up to and including the gale day preceding the date of the passing of the act ceased to be payable. No proceedings against the tenant for recovery of arrears could be begun or continued after the passing of the act.92 All arrears of rent up to the final gale day in 1920 were cancelled and those accruing from that gale day to the one preceding the passing of the act were compounded at 75 per cent of the total. Instead of rents, tenants paid to the land commission an equivalent sum less 25 per cent.93 How did this legislation affect landowners? Firstly the land commission went in search of property to relieve congestion or appease the land hungry. Beforehand, the commission advertised in the Iris Oifigiuil the appointed date on which particular estates were to be appropriated. This procedure became known as 'gazetting'. It allowed a landlord time to appeal against the acquisition of his estate from the time it was gazetted to the appointed date. Accordingly, just over 200,000 acres belonging to seventy-eight of the 100 landowners from the sample were gazetted in the Iris Oifigiuil from January 1924 to December 1930. These figures illustrate the point that not all land in the possession of landlords had been transferred. They included Lord Famham who had 11,300 acres gazetted in November 1926.94 This was mainly tenanted land to be sold to occupiers. Lord Cloncurry had over 10,000 acres gazetted between April and June 1925.95 In his case it was largely untenanted. It included his Galway estate of 3,400 acres which he and his predecessor had used for grazing purposes. It also included 2,700 acres on the Kildare-Meath

170 border incorporating townlands of Ballynohill, Ballyvoneen, Newtown and Corcoranstown which the land commission 'declared to be required for the purpose of relieving congestion'.96 Viscount De Vesci had almost 10,000 acres gazetted in October of the following year.97 Lord Ashtown had 8,900 acres gazetted in February 1926; Lord Powerscourt 6,800 in October. In June 1926, Lord Leitrim had 20,300 acres gazetted which was the largest single gazetting of any sample landowner. When these estates were sold, the owner lost out heavily on what could have been gained under the terms of the 1903 Act. They had to accept the standard rate of fifteen years' purchase compared to the average of 25.4 years' purchase available under the Wyndham Act up to 1908. One must also consider the fact that the post war economy of the 1920s was characterised by great instability. This caused huge losses to landowners from the point of view of capital available for future investment. In November 1924, Lord Crofton sold 511 tenanted acres in Kilkenny, with a rental of £230 for £3,624.98 Had he sold under the Wyndham Act he could have hoped to have received up to £5,800 for the same land. He was also paid in 4.5 per cent land bonds instead of cash. They would yield only £163 per annum compared to the rental of £230 per annum. In December of the following year, Lord Headfort sold 473 acres in Cavan and Meath with a rental of £481 for £7,805, as opposed to the £12,200 he could have received twenty years before. Again, land bonds would yield only £351 per annum, a decrease of £130 on his rental income.99 Similarly landlords like Lords Ashtown, Clonbrock, Headfort, Cloncurry and Sligo who had expanded their farming ventures in the late nineteenth, early twentieth centuries found their right to retain untenanted acres being questioned. These five alone had between them 25,000 untenanted acres gazetted from 1 January 1924 to 31 December 1926. The effects of the 1923 Land Act on such landlords who retained

171 substantial acres can be seen in Lord Cloncurry's dealings with his mortgagees. After the Granard mortgage, Lord Cloncurry's was the most substantial granted by Maynooth college in the 1870s. In 1873, Valentine Lord Cloncurry had secured a mortgage of £70,000 on his Lyons/Cloncurry estate which had an annual rental at the time of £7,330.100 About twelve months later he received £25,000 from the college on his Limerick estate, the rental of which was £3,500 per annum.101 It was not until the revolutionary period that Cloncurry first encountered difficulties in meeting repayments. Even at the height of the land war and despite much trouble on his Limerick estate he had been punctual in repayments. In 1923 he wrote to the college trustees: For more than forty years I paid the half yearly interest with strict punctuality. The bursar never had to apply for any money that was overdue and our business relations were on a friendly basis.102 In 1920 the principal due on the Cloncurry mortgage had stood at almost £64,300.103 From the time he acquired the loan he had made little attempt to pay off the principal. Then again he had retained his estate largely intact, so he had received no capital lump sums which would have enabled him to do so. Conditions during the revolutionary period made it difficult for landlords like Cloncurry to draw rents on the tenanted lands which he maintained. From 1919 to 1922 the tenants on his Limerick estate paid no rents.104 At the same time his mortgagees became apprehensive about their investments as they had been about others in the 1880s. As Cloncurry was falling behind with interest, the trustees in 1920 gave him the option to pay back the principal in full or to pay a new penal rate of interest at 7 per cent per annum, which was about 2.5 per cent higher than the ordinary rate he had been paying.105 Cloncurry, hoping to retain his land, opted for repayments under the penal rate. However, by the end of 1920 he was running into difficulty because of the rent strike on his Limerick estate. No rents coming in meant he was

172 forced to make interest repayments from other sources of investment which undoubtedly he would have preferred to have left untouched.106 As the situation on his Limerick estate worsened, Cloncurry was left with no option but to sell it. It would seem that he decided in early 1921 that a capital sum in the hand was better than no rents in the future. The £10,000 he received from the land commission for the Limerick estate was used to offset interest to Maynooth College.107 The 1923 Act brought with it new difficulties for Cloncurry. Under its terms he was prevented by law from collecting rents from the land which therefore prevented him from paying the charges upon it.108 By 1924 he was again £4,400 in arrears in interest.109 Cloncurry argued that his problem lay in the fact that the compounded arrears and payment in lieu of rent owed to him by the land commission on lands he had sold but on which the transfer to tenants had not been finalised exceeded £6,000. With this in mind he wrote to the college bursar: 'I do not think your trustees can justly complain when only one year's interest remains due'.110 But the college itself was facing something of a crisis at the time or at least that was the pretext used by the new bursar, Fr. John Maguire, to encourage Cloncurry to be prompt with repayments. He wrote to Cloncurry in March 1924: I am sorry to say the college finances are not strong, and I have some anxiety on the matter, more especially as I am just taking over the responsibilities of the office of bursar. I may tell you at present that our overdraft with the bankers is presently (sic) near £20,000.111 Again the terms of the 1923 Act did not work in Cloncurry's favour when in 1926 the land commission acquired compulsorily a large part of his estate for what his solicitors termed 'a very nominal sum'. (This was probably his 3,200 acres in Galway for which the land commission paid him £12,000 in April 1926.112) According to his solicitors this made it impossible for Cloncurry

173 to adjust his income and outgoings.113 The developments which had seen the downfall of so many of his peers had finally caught up with him. He had been perhaps one of the shrewdest landlords in the sample who because of astute estate management and profitable demesne farming had kept creditors at bay much longer than his peers. But the new land war, the revolutionary period and the terms of the 1923 Land Act all combined to bring even him down. When Cloncurry died in February 1928, the principal due on his mortgage still stood at £52,700 which passed to his successors. His daughter Kathleen inherited the Lyons debt of £37,300 while his brother inherited the Limerick debt of £15,400.114 They tried to reduce the burden by claiming to the college trustees in 1928 that the interest rate was too high. The larger mortgage of £37,500, they pointed out, was secured to a large extent on the demesne lands of Lyons 'and owing to agricultural depression it has strained the late Lord Cloncurry's resources to the utmost to pay such a high rate of interest'.115 Equally as important was the fact that so much of his untenanted land and tenanted land had been appropriated by the land commission at unfavourable rates not only denying him rental income where it had previously existed but preventing him from farming on the extensive basis that he had done in the past. The college authorities could not however justify an interest decrease of 1.5 per cent.116 And so it seems his successors were forced to continue their repayments for many years. The last available reference to the Cloncurry mortgage stated that by 1934 the loan had been reduced to £16,500.117 That was almost 60 years after it had been originally secured on what was then a very large landed estate, the owner of which was confident that the rental income he was guaranteed would see to its repayment. The transfer of tenanted holdings under the 1923 act was slow and unsatisfactory from the government's point of view and was hampered by legal constraints. The Land Act of 1931 was intended to speed up the process. Section 9(2) stipulated that

174 immediately upon the publication of a list of vested holdings, tenanted land comprised in such list shall (as the case may require) become or be deemed to have become vested in the land commission on the appointed day.118 As under the 1923 Land Act, this act compulsorily acquired land at what was effectively a nominal price. From May to August 1931 landlords from the sample received £1.5 million for tenanted holdings.119 These holdings had a rental valuation of £95,074.120 On average 15.8 years purchase was advanced to vendors. Once again, landlords lost out badly on what they could have received under the Wyndham Act. Had they sold in the early years of that act when up to 25.4 years were available, they could have secured £2.4 million. Again, being paid in 4.5 per cent land bonds meant their annual income fell from a rental one of £95,000 to an invested one of £67,500, a decrease of 31 per cent (see table

6.11). Loopholes obviously continued to be exploited under the 1931 Land Act. Speaking in the Dail in July 1933 on the new land bill of that year, Frank Aiken pointed out: 'There is a very big number of ranches and estates on which there are very few people employed'.121 He went on: 'Very few realise the legal and other difficulties which the land commission have to surmount before they can divide even a single estate'.122 There were lengthy procedures which led to administrative difficulties. There had to be a declaration that the land was required for the relief of congestion; this had then to be published in the Iris Oifigiuil; next came the hearing by the land commission of the owners' objections; a decision was reached after a further inspection of the property if necessary; this could be followed by an appeal from the owner which again could be followed by further hearings, inspections etc.123 Furthermore Aiken claimed: 'It has been found that the safeguards given to home farms and demesne lands have operated to impede the work of the land commission in the relief of congestion'.124 Owners of untenanted land had exploited the loophole

175 in the 1923 Land Act which had allowed them to claim that their land fell within one of the exempted categories. The bill on which Aiken spoke, which was to become the 1933 Land Act, was aimed at rectifying this and at distributing 'the available land so as to provide a livelihood for the greatest possible number of our population'.125 His final sentiment that 'the day of the large and lazy rancher is over' sounded the death knell for many big houses dependent on agricultural acres to sustain them. The 1933 Act empowered the land commission to redistribute any property it found suitable with the exception of ordinary owner-occupied farms. This prevented landowners from laying claim to outlying farms as they had done in the past for it empowered the commission to acquire holdings of individuals who did not reside in their immediate vicinity or who did not use their property 'in the same manner as an ordinary farmer in accordance with proper methods of husbandry'.126 Under previous acts residential property was exempted from their scope which meant landowners could claim untenanted land was residential even if only a derelict ruin stood on it. The 1933 Act eliminated this. It was in effect aimed at extensive non residential property owners. Its terms of purchase were similar to the previous act. There were few transactions in the Iris Oifigiuil from January 1934 onwards concerning the landowners from the sample. Only 2,400 acres belonging to the sample landowners were gazetted. In two other cases Lord Cloncurry received a further £4,500 for 370 acres with a rental valuation of £434, while Viscount De Vesci received £3,200 for 310 acres with a rental of £237.127 It was, thus, the late-193 0s before the Free State Land Acts had succeeded in transferring the land in the ownership of the 100 sample landowners. In total these acts had vested 113,800 holdings on 3.1 million acres in the land commission for £20.8 million.128

176 iv The shift from landed income to invested income The sale of Irish estates had major repercussions for the future of the big house in Ireland. Annual rental income had sustained these houses for generations. From the 1850s to. the 1880s, rental income on most estates was substantial and regularly paid. The proof of the soundness of investment in Irish land up to the 1880s, lay in the willingness of church bodies or insurance companies to invest in mortgages to Irish landlords. During the post-famine decades which were characterised by a growth in economic prosperity, there seemed no immediate danger that rental income would be threatened except by the occasional hiccough such as happened in the early 1860s. But this could be balanced by better years, when landlords could hope to draw more than their annual rent rolls as tenants made up their arrears. From the 1880s, landlords' fears were realised as agricultural depression, the land war, the reduction of rents and the calling in of mortgages all combined to dramatically reduce income. In the late nineteenth century, big houses were not seriously threatened except that cutbacks became necessary and occasionally heirlooms were sold. But few houses were sold prior to the 1920s. From the sample group, only Muckross and Mount Juliet were sold before the 1920s. It was more in the long term that the sale of estates became detrimental to the future of the big house largely because of the shift from landed income to invested income. Investments did not provide as good a return as annual rental income. If we take a hypothetical situation whereby we assume that the entire capital secured under land sales by the sample owners was available for investment we can see how this was so. Prior to the 1880s, the best rates available on investments were to be found in mortgages yielding usually 4.25 to 4.5 per cent.129 India stock yielded 4 per cent but it was difficult to acquire, while government securities averaged

177 around 3 per cent.130 For this reason the R.C.B. had invested the highest proportion of its capital in mortgages to Irish landlords. As early as 1873, almost 50 per cent of its invested capital was in Irish land (see table 6.12). By the time landlords began to sell off the bulk of their estates from 1903, the investment market had changed considerably. Investment in mortgages was no longer advisable. In 1903, the R.C.B. Claimed that the amounts received from mortgages paid off had risen considerably but that 'the money arising from such payment, has, of necessity, been reinvested at lower rates of interest'.131 By 1924 its investment portfolio reflected this change. Only 7 per cent of its invested capital, approximately £560,000, then lay in mortgages (see table 6.13). The remaining 93 per cent, £7.9 million, was invested mainly in British government and colonial securities and railway stocks and shares. In 1903, the interest rates on securities which the Irish Land Conference had advised vendors to invest in yielded 3 to 3.25 per cent interest.132 The secretary of the Irish Landowners' Convention, writing in 1903 to the editor of the Freemans Journal, emphasised that: No higher yield can be obtained from really first class trustee stocks. As to less favoured trustee securities, many of the best...are small issues and cannot be obtained in the parcels of quantities required for the investment of large sums. Others are not redeemable and are avoided by investors for that reason.133 In 1908, the final report of the Royal Commission on Congestion in Ireland concluded that 'landlords argue that rates higher than 3.5 per cent can be secured only on investments in dangerous securities', and thus they tended to avoid them.134 The R.C.B. learned to its cost the wisdom of avoiding such securities. Having invested £99,250 in Russian bonds at 4.5 per cent in 1909, they received no dividends from 1917, with the result that by 1924 that investment had been written down to £39,300.135 The R.C.B.'s 1919 report reflected that having regard to the insecurity of the financial situation in 178 Europe, and the difficulty of predicting the future value of investment, it is impossible to avoid anxiety as to the stability of our stipend and sustentation funds.136 Indeed, in the absence of source material relating to landlords' investments from their land sales, it is worth noting that the economic depression of the 1920s knocked over £800,000 off the market value of the R.C.B.'s general fund investment of £8.79 million from 1925 to 1926 alone, representing a depreciation of about 9 per cent.137 No doubt many Irish landlords found themselves similarly perturbed at this time. Between 1910 and 1914, the landlords in the sample sold 247,359 acres for £2,624,107.138 The rental valuation of this land was £114,091. If the full purchase price was invested at 3.75 per cent, it would yield £98,403 per annum, which represented a decline of 14 per cent on rental income. This decline is a rather conservative estimate for some landlords in the sample. Table 6.14 compares rental income of portions of five estates for which cash advances under the Wyndham Act were made from 1910 to 1914 with the estimated annual return on capital invested at 3.75 per cent. Here, the average decline in annual income was 22.5 per cent. In this respect those landlords who held on to large tracts of tenanted land after 1923 were even worse off. If we take the twelve estates in table 6.15 sold under the terms of the 1931 Land Act for around fifteen years purchase on the rents we see that the estimated decline in income from rental to invested averaged 45 per cent. This was primarily because the price they secured was around ten years rental purchase below the highest price available under the Wyndham Act. In total the rental valuation of the land sold was £42,691 for which £658,008 was received in land bonds yielding 4.5 per cent per annum. This would have given an annual income of around £29,600, a decline of 31 per cent. Table 6.15 shows how this decline could have affected landlords such as Lord Famham who had held on to over 11,000 acres of tenanted land until the 1930s. His annual income fell from a rental one of £9,346 to one of £6,334, 179 a decline of 32 per cent. As stated at the outset this is a hypothetical situation i.e. supposing that the vendor had the total purchase price available to him in cash to invest at his discretion. This was rarely, if ever, the case with an Irish estate. The level of indebtedness which had grown since the late 1870s saw to it that much of the purchase money was swallowed by redemption charges, family charges, and a myriad of other incumbrances before the landlord received his portion. And it should also be remembered that the rents on which the purchase price had been based, even under the generous terms of the Wyndham Act, were appreciably lower, on average around 20 per cent, as a result of judicial fixing. Many Landlords had fallen into great difficulties with their mortgagees during the land war. This had meant an accumulation of arrears plus the fact that they had not had an opportunity to diminish their principal. When they came to sell, they would therefore have to pay off arrears and principal. In 1903 the R.C.B. still had £3.1 million invested in mortgages.139 They had also £115,000 in interest arrears due to them.140 By 1905 arrears for sixteen mortgagors had risen to £133,000.141 At that stage the R.C.B. had received notices of the sale of twelve estates under the Wyndham Act on which they held mortgages of £760,000. But the finance committee of the R.C.B. could only envisage a 'probable loss of mortgage capital' because those sales would 'involve considerable deficits'.142 When mortgages were redeemed, less was available for long term investment. If they were not redeemed, mortgagors were faced with large annual interest repayments which depreciated their invested income. With this in mind, the Royal Commission on Congestion in Ireland in its final reportin 1908, cited the example of an estate with an annual rental income of £1,000 on which there was a mortgage of £10,000. The report estimated that to give the landlord his net income, he would have to receive £26,666. That represented 26.6 years purchase when the average rate available in 1908 was 1.2 years

180 below that. If the mortgage was redeemed, and the balance invested at 3.75 per cent it would yield around £625 per annum, a drop of 38 per cent on rental income. If he did not redeem the mortgage, then it cost him £500 in interest thereby cutting his net income to £500. Between them, seven of the case study owners listed in table 5.4, who had loans from the R.C.B. around the time this study begins, had paid off almost £540,000 in principal by around 1914.143 The King-Harmans had paid off almost £200,000. This undoubtedly depreciated greatly their potential future income. As far as could be ascertained, using the books of advances, the King- Harmans realised over £625,000 from land sales from 1881 to 1921. Even if we suppose that all of the sum was available to the King- Harmans for investment at 3.75 per cent, we can see clearly the effect which the shift from landed income to invested income had on landlords' incomes. Such an investment would have yielded approximately £23,400 per annum. Again if we suppose that the estate valuation in 1880 of £40,000 was approximate to rental income, the King-Harmans had in the region of £31,700 in disposable income per annum after £8,300 in interest on encumbrances had been paid (see table 5.4). Even the income on all of the £625,000 falls some 26 per cent short of landed income in the 1880s. If only £425,000 was available for investment after £200,000 in encumbrances had been repaid the decline is 41 per cent. And there were other families from the case study still paying off large mortgages long after 1903. By the outbreak of World War I, seven of the 100 sample landlords still had substantial mortgages outstanding to the R.C.B. and some of these continued to repay interest for many years to come (see table 6.16). It is not entirely clear when all of these mortgages were paid off. But the most substantial one, that of the representatives of Lord Howth which in 1914 stood at £171,419 was still being repaid in 1942 when the balance stood at just over £3,000. The Howths had held on to almost 6,700 acres in the baronies of

181 Balrothery, Coolock, Kells and Ratoath in Counties Dublin and Meath with a rental income of around £7,000. They, therefore, may have used this rental income to continue the payment of interest. However, in 1931, Julian Gaisford St. Lawrence was forced to sell the estate for the standard price of £105,000 under the 1931 Land Act.144 Possibly, a large proportion of this was used to offset part of the principal. When the remainder of the Leinster estate was sold in 1903 under the terms of the Wyndham Act the family received a total of £778,000. Of this £23,000 went to paying expenses incurred by the sale and another £79,000 was used for redemption of charges.145 The remaining £600,000 or so was invested in English mortgages at 3.5 per cent. With the economic climate of the time and insecurity of land as collateral, this was hardly a wise investment. £600,000 invested at 3.5 per cent yielded only £21,000 per annum. In 1899, rental income from this land had been £31,043. Interest repayments were approximately £2.700 leaving the duke of Leinster with a disposable income of £28,340.146 Certainly for heirs, like Lord Edward Fitzgerald, (who became seventh Duke of Leinster in 1922), who wanted to maintain the lifestyle of his ancestors an invested income did not provide it. The fact that Edward was something of a spendthrift did not augur well for the future of Carton. He had a special fondness for gambling and one of his wives - he was to have four in all - described his rooms as being 'ankle deep in form books, bookies' slips and football pool coupons'.147 Before the end of World War I, Edward, then the youngest of the sixth duke of Leinster's sons was already in debt to the sum of £60,000. Not anticipating that he would one day inherit the Carton estate, Edward sold his life interest in it to Henry Mallaby-Deeley, like himself a gambling man. Mallaby-Deeley paid £67,500 in cash and agreed to pay a further £1,000 a year for ten years.148 Part of the agreement was that Edward would have the option

182 of redeeming his interest for £400,000 at the end of ten years.149 Within those ten years, Edward's eldest brother had died young and unmarried, while his second brother had been killed during World War I. Thus, Edward became heir to Carton but was not, or never would be, in the position to redeem his life interest. In 1923, negotiations were opened with Mallaby- Deeley to repurchase 'in such a way and on such terms as would enable funds to be available for the payment' of Edward's creditors, 'but nothing had yet been arranged'.150 At this stage Edward was fighting his second bankruptcy, with debts aggregating £25,000. Debts from his previous bankruptcy of £35,000 had not by then been satisfied.151 His representative F.S. Solomon pointed out that the duke's debts were 'mainly claims for income and super tax'.152 Again, the duke's case emphasises the cumulative effect which land sales, decline in income, indebtedness, taxation and in his case extravagance had on Irish big houses at this time. v The rise in taxation F.S. Soloman's claim that the seventh duke of Leinster's bankruptcy was largely caused by claims for income and super tax may have been used to give an air of respectability to his client's financial demise, but the role which increased taxation caused in the decline of the big house should not be underestimated. At the same time that revolutionary changes in the transfer of landownership in Ireland were happening, increased taxation was exacting a further toll on those who had either liquidated the bulk of their assets and converted to share portfolios or retained most or part of their estates for farming purposes. In his England 1870-1914, R.C.K. Ensor claimed that Harcourt's introduction of death duties in 1894 ranked 'with the major events in British fiscal history' allowing the state to take substantial toll of the capital wealth left by deceased persons.153 Beginning at 3 per cent on estates valued at over

183 £1,000, they rose to 8 per cent on estates over £1 million in value (see table 6.17). An unprecedented rise in the level of death duties occurred in Lloyd George's famous 'People's budget' of 1909 when he was forced to raise money to finance old age pensions and pay for eight new dreadnoughts. Beginning at 3 per cent on estates valued at £1,000, sharp increases occurred on estates valued at over £20,000 when they rose by 2 per cent from the previous year. They were increased to 13 per cent on estates over £1 million. In 1919, they increased even more, reflecting the post-war government's desire to capitalise on the wealth of the landed class. Now they rose from 7 per cent on estates valued at £20,000 to 28 per cent on estates over £1 million. During the period from Lloyd George's budget to 1921, a total of £13.27 million was paid from death duties in Ireland to the U.K. exchequer.154 The Free State inherited its rates of death duty from Britain. The 1923 report of the Irish revenue commissioners emphasised the point that duty was leviable in respect of moveable property situate out of the Free State where the deceased was the owner and was domiciled in the Free State or where the property was vested in a trustee resident in the Free State.155 To avoid double taxation of moveable property situated in Great Britain, Northern Ireland or any of the British dominions which by reason of a death was liable to duty in Ireland, and Great Britain and its colonies, the two governments came to an agreement in 1923. Accordingly, a sum equal to the amount payable in Great Britain was deducted from the amount of the duty due in Ireland. In 1923-24, death duties payable in Great Britain, allowed as a deduction from estate duties in Ireland, amounted to £53,700.156 From 1924 onwards this figure gradually increased, averaging over £313,600 from that year to 1930. By the 1940s it had increased still further averaging almost £433,000 from 1945 to 1950 (see table 6.18). The same period witnessed a significant change in the rates of duties and

184 the thresholds at which they were levied. As table 6.19 shows when compared with the rates in table 6.17, they remained much the same for estates valued at up to £10,000. After that the thresholds became narrower and the rates rose, thereby preying more on the capital wealth of the middling estates than before. From 1925 to 1930, a total of £5 million was paid in death duties in Ireland.157 For the same number of years from 1945 to 1950, this total rose to £13.4 million.158 As in Britain, certain stocks and bonds were acceptable as payment of death duties. In 1924-25, £54,900 in duties was paid by such stocks and bonds.159 In 1926, £20,500 was paid in this way. From 1926 to 1928 inclusive, £5,800 was paid in stocks and bonds. After 1929, this method was no longer used.160 Under section 13(6) of the Damage to Property (Compensation) Act 1923, securities issued under it were also acceptable under certain conditions.161 No reference of the latter being used was, however, found. Lloyd George's 1909 budget also saw the introduction of super tax. This was levied on income at 6d in the pound of the amount which exceeded £3,000.162 Because it was levied on gross rather than net income, it meant that super tax was a grave source of concern to landlords who had substantial outlay on debts and charges. This was especially so as interest rates rose during the war years from around 3.5 per cent to 6.0 per cent.163 Again at various stages super tax was subject to large increases. In 1914, it was levied at lOd in every £1 for the first £500 in excess of £2,500 rising to 3s 6d in every £1 over £10,000. In 1918, the rate rose again to one shilling in every £1 over £2,500 to a maximum of 4s 6d in every £1 over £10,000. And in 1920 it went up to Is 6d in every £1 over £2,500 to six shillings in every £1 over £30,000.164 Table 6.21 shows how these rises dramatically increased the revenue of the British exchequer from the introduction of super tax in 1909 to 1921. It also shows that increasingly more people came into the super tax bracket during this period. Similarly between 1914 and 1923 ordinary income tax rose from Is 3d

185 in the pound to 5s.165 This rate was inherited by the Free State government which lowered it to 3s in the pound by 1928. However, in the face of economic depression and the Economic War with Britain, the level of income tax in the Free State rose from 3s 6d in the pound in 1932 to 5s Od in 1933 to a high of 7s 6d in 1942 (see table 6.22). Again, the initial rate of super tax in the Free State was inherited from Britain. Beginning at Is 6d in every pound on incomes above £2,000, it rose to 6s in every pound on incomes above £30,000. As with death duties, it was subject to significant increases from 1923 to 1950 (see table 6.23). The combination of income tax and super tax (or sur-tax) had a tremendous effect on the landlords with which this work concerns itself. If we take a look at some specimen incomes for 1924 and 1950 and the amounts of tax which had to be paid on them we can see how greatly an income, whether all earned or invested, could be depleted by taxation. In 1923, a married person with children with an income from investments of £5,000 per annum, paid £1,528 in tax. By 1950, a person in a similar situation paid £1,925. For a person on an income of £20,000 per annum, tax payable rose from £8,879 in 1923 to £12,390 in 1953 (see table 6.24). It is small wonder then that landlords and their supporters began to feel snowed under by increased taxation from the late nineteenth century onwards. In 1897, the combined rates and tax bill on the Headfort estate was £712. By 1916, this figure had trebled to £2,300 and by 1920 had again increased dramatically to £5,900.166 For the years 1917-1919, the Ormondes paid a total of over £5,800 in super tax and by 1925 the total income tax bill had risen to £6,500.167 From the early 1920s Irish landlords and their representatives were expressing their concerns regarding increased taxation and were in agreement that taxation and duties were significant in the decline of the big house. In August 1921, the editor of the Irish Times, fearing the worst in Ireland, wrote

186 of the situation in England: The burden of taxation is crushing the life out of rural England. During the last two years many great landowners have been forced to sell their historic mansions and estates....The Duke of Portland has just told a gathering of his tenants that 'he fears there can be little doubt that those who come after him will not be able to live at Walbeck.' The charges on land, the demands of the income tax collector, and the prospect of heavy death duties, he added, made a closing down of the larger country houses almost inevitable.168 And so it was with owners in Ireland. A month later the earl of Meath held a gathering of his workforce and tenantry at Kilruddery to inform them that he was compelled to close his conservatory, hothouses, kitchen gardens and pleasure gardens and to place several men on the pension list. He stated: 'My father was always a poor man. His income was never more than from £1,500 to £2,000 a year' and 'he never knew anything about the present heavy taxation of 6s in the pound income tax and super tax.'169 The earl made no secret of the fact that he had married 'a wife with money' but that when she died in 1918 her income ceased to go to him under the terms of her father's will. During her lifetime she had expended £80,000 of her income on the estate. Now and 'for some considerable time', the earl claimed: 'I have been living on money I had to withdraw from capital...this could only lead to bankruptcy'.170 In 1921 taxation accounted for a total of £4,436, or almost 43 per cent of estate charges (see table 6.25). Kilruddery itself was suffering the brunt of the necessary cutbacks. The earl had not lived in it for some time. And he claimed it was unlikely he would be able to do so in the near future for after he met charges and expenses he was left with only £209 (see table 6.25). He estimated that to re-open the house would cost a further £2,000-£4,000 per annum, money which was simply not available to him.171 At least not from his Irish estate. Meath had made it clear that once his Irish estate was no longer self- supporting he could not afford to draw on his invested income to support the upkeep of his Irish home. 187 A few months later the marquis of Waterford entertained his employees at luncheon on the Curraghmore estate. His speech hardly inspired confidence in them. He told them: In consequence of the rise in wages and the abnormal taxation it was found very hard to keep up an estate like Curraghmore and they were forced to do things on a greatly reduced scale.172 Waterford's speech echoes the earl of Meath's decision to cut back on big house expenditure when the estate no longer supported its upkeep. Neither, it seems, was prepared to use the capital they had invested from the sale of Irish lands probably in British and colonial stocks and shares to supplement the losses which their Irish estate were now making. The capital which landlords received from their land sales was, it seems, invariably invested outside Ireland. This was the type of move anticipated by Lord Ashtown when giving evidence to the commission for the relief of congestion in Ireland in 1908. He claimed that if his fellow landlords sold their Irish property 'the money they invest will leave the country. It will not be invested here [Ireland]'.173 This is one area for which primary sources are extremely scarce, but it is the impression which was gained from what is available. The Ormonde papers contain share portfolios which show their investments to have been global and extremely diverse. In the 1930s, £10,000 was invested in Queensland government stock, £19,000 in India stock, £3,500 in a Commonwealth of Australia loan, £7,000 in East Indian railways, £1,100 in Lancashire Electric Light Company, £15,000 in a mortgage to Lord Llangattock, £2,500 in Chinese Government gold bonds, £7,000 in Johannesbourg consols, £6,000 in Canadian National Railways, and thousands more in a wide variety of companies, railways, etc. worldwide. Except for around £3,000 held in Free State land bonds, no other investment seems to have been held in Ireland.174 Similarly, Alvin Jackson has found that the capital received by Somerset Saunderson from the sale of his 10,000 Cavan acres was 'converted into an 188 extensive colonial share portfolio'.175 He invested in the Hudson Bay Company, Russo-Asiatic Consolidated, a South African mine and citrus farm, Malayan rubber, Australian copper and South American railways. Jackson concludes that 'it was a cleverly diverse portfolio, and it spanned the globe. Only in Ireland did Somerset resist investment'.176 The Leinsters, as we have seen, invested £600,000 of the money they received under the Wyndham Act in English mortgages. The will of Viscount Doneraile of 1960 shows that he had a total of £14,600 invested in England, £2,700 in Australia, £850 in his current account with the Westminster Bank and £5,500 in a deposit account.177 The total net value of his personal estate was put at £53,000. Of this £2,400 was payable in estate duty in England and £6,000 in Ireland. Therefore, roughly 16 per cent of the net value of the estate was lost in duty.178 The financial situation of the family explains the fact that Doneraile Court was allowed to fall into disrepair until taken over by the Irish Georgian Society in the 1970s and subsequently restored.179 Even when Lord Wicklow, acting as trustee for the Courtown estate, suggested investment in house building in Ireland in 1937, he was warned off by advisers. Longley Taylor of Buckinghamshire wrote to him: With regard, however, to your suggestion that the money derived from the sale of outlying portions of Lord Courtown's estate should be applied to building houses in Gorey, I am afraid that I could not advise his lordship to adopt that course. It is my experience that the possession of house property in small Irish towns is uneconomic and the source of endless trouble. My advise to Lord Courtown would be to put any money which he may derive from the sale of his property in this county [Wexford] into reliable investment and to be content to own nothing in any Irish town but ground rent.180 Lord Courtown had very little to spend on the family home. Problems began with the death of his grandfather in 1917. On that occasion, the estate was 'wound up so far as funds have been available for the purpose'.181 The estate had been valued for £12,180 for duties, while other charges amounted to

189 £10,000. At the time the family held almost £63,500 in 4.5 per cent land bonds. They were forced to sell almost £30,000 of these to meet the estate duties.182 All the debts were discharged with the exception of three amounting to around £1,300. Legacies of £1,800 were also owed to three members of the Stopford family. They agreed to accept interest at 5 per cent on the amounts due to them until he had sold off paintings from Courtown to meet his remaining debts.183 There was very little for his descendants. When his grandson died his will put the value of his personal estate in 1957 at a mere £5,700.184 By then the Courtowns were resident in Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, their Irish home having been sold around 1945 and later demolished.185 Significantly, from the big house's point of view, former landlords, particularly peers, like Lords Meath, Waterford, Ormonde and Courtown, often moved on a more permanent basis to Britain where the bulk of their new investments lay. Sometimes, this led to their homes becoming run down and dilapidated as in the case of Doneraile Court, or being sold and demolished as in the case of Castleboro. But while the location of investments might have been important, more often than not the vacating or sale of a big house was consequential upon the decline of the acreage of the estate upon which it was situated below a viable level. In 1905, with reference to the Wyndham Act, the earl of Dunraven had claimed: 'As a class there can be no question that the financial circumstances of the landed gentry will be improved by sale'.186 He was being very optimistic. But what Dunraven hoped was that the 1903 Land Act would extricate landlords from the indebtedness which threatened to ruin them as a class and leave enough for them to remain solvent in the future and resident. His ideal was for landlords to continue to be resident gentry 'farming their own land, retaining the amenities of their position and finding...a larger scope for usefulness than they have hitherto enjoyed'.187 They were unable to retain the

190 amenities of their position or influence the politics of the Free State, but down to the 1930s they had managed to retain substantial tracts of land. For former landlords in Ireland, the reduction of retained land below a viable level began a downward spiral that was impossible to reverse. It was tantamount to ruin especially with the increase in taxation. One 'Western Landowner' wrote to the editor of the Irish Times in July 1922 stating that he had received no rents in three years. He was now in a particularly precarious position. He wrote: Now I have received an income tax note. The taxes have to be paid and the mortgagees threaten to call in the mortgage. The small amount I make on the lands in my own hands [150 acres] is barely able to pay for the necessaries of my family.188 For those who owned a great mansion, much more than 150 acres would have been required to maintain it. The majority of owners in the sample had managed to avoid selling all of their estates under the pre-1923 Land Acts, with exceptions such as the earl of Granard. Thus, most landlords from the sample were like Lord Wicklow who held on to enough tenanted and untenanted land right up to the 1930s to maintain Shelton Abbey.189 When it got to the stage at which his land was compulsorily acquired and he had to draw on his invested income to supplement the running of Shelton, he was forced to reconsider his situation as Lords Meath and Curraghmore had been. In the mid-1930s, Wicklow's estate income was essentially made up of around £1,000 in rents (from urban property) and the remainder from farming. Farm sales from 1934 to 1937 averaged around £1,400 per annum.190 Unfortunately there are no records before this year which would have shown whether farming had been more extensive and profitable before the 1931 Land Act. But certainly the economic depression of the 1920s followed by the Economic War which begun in 1932 would have affected Wicklow as it did the farming class as a whole. From 1920 to 1923, agricultural output fell by 38 per cent as a result of

191 renewed agricultural depression. The price of store cattle fell by 40 per cent which was 10 per cent more than the decline in the cost of living.191 When the Economic War broke out it was to prove even more damaging to agricultural development in the Free State, particularly to the cattle rearing farmers with whom the old landlord class were now most associated. The war resulted from the new Fianna Fail government's refusal to transfer to Britain the annual annuities paid by Irish farmers to the land commission to redeem the money advanced under the pre-1923 Land Acts. In reprisal the British government imposed penal duties on Irish agricultural produce. Cattle were subject to duties first of 20 per cent and then of 40 per cent. By 1934 the value per animal, depending on age, had fallen by 68-88 per cent.192 From 1931 to 1935, the average price of cattle exported declined from £16.5 per animal to £8, a decline of just over 50 per cent. During the same time the value of cattle exported fell from £12.7 million to £4.3 million.193 This could only have been damaging to landlord farmers as it was to the Irish cattle industry as a whole which was never again to regain the position in the British market that it had held pre- 1931. This can also be seen as another significant reason for the sudden escalation in sales of the case study houses in the period from the beginning of the 1930s to around 1950. By the mid-1930s, Lord Wicklow's Irish estate was not self supporting. The auditor expressed his concern to Lord Wicklow about the fact that payments over three years exceeded receipts by an average of £5,455 per annum (see table 6.26). This could be regarded as the average annual upkeep of the house and estate to his lordship which, because the estate was no longer self supporting, had to be a drain on his other sources of income. The following year estate expenses included £2,082 in management, £2,008 for the upkeep of garden and demesne, and £2,598 for the maintenance of Shelton Abbey itself. The house's budget included £463 on servant's wages, £1,318 on household expenses, £139 on laundry and £225 on repairs.194 Rates and income tax

192 accounted for almost £2,000 (see table 6.27). The auditor's report for June 1937 summarised Wicklow's position: It will be observed that the receipts include remittances from your lordship to the extent of £4,251.3.5. If these be excluded and also a sum of £46.17.6 in respect of refund of income tax, it will be found that ordinary income for the six months was £1,033.2.4. On the other hand the payments include £372.16.6 for income tax and £56.16.3 in connection with the new cow byres. If these are also eliminated it will be seen that the ordinary payments come to £4,655.11.2 for the half year. You will see then that the ordinary payments for the half year exceeded the ordinary receipts by £3,622.15.10.195 This was a situation that Lord Wicklow could not afford. Shelton Abbey was proving a drain on whatever other forms of income he had. He tried eventually opening it as a hotel in 1947 in a bid to make it a viable commercial enterprise. However, by 1951 he was forced to sell the house/hotel because of taxation.196 It subsequently became a special school and is now an open prison. The case of the Butler of Castlecrine estate in Clare is also rather typical. As we saw in the previous chapter, its rental was particularly badly hit by events of the 1880s. The estate was sold under the Land Act of 1903, but the family managed to retain enough land to continue farming and thus maintain the big house. From 1896 to 1915, the Butlers bought a total of 1,755 cattle, valued at over £13,200. During the same period they sold 1,910 cattle for £20,788.197 As table 6.28 shows the most profitable five year period was from 1916 to 1920, coinciding with the economic boom of the war years, when 193 cattle were bought for over £2,600 and 304 were sold for £7,800. However, the decline in farming fortunes is perceptible from 1920 onwards when the land the Butlers had retained for farming purposes was compulsorily acquired by the land commission. From 1925 to 1930 only 93 cattle were bought, roughly 17 per cent of the 1896 to 1900 figure, and 159 were sold, roughly 30 per cent of the 1896 to 1900 figure.198 In the long term this probably led to the sale of Castlecrine around 1950. The house was later to be demolished.199

193 The Ormonde investment portfolio shows that the family invested widely and diversely following the sale of the bulk of their Kilkenny and Tipperary estates. But they had retained the 550 acre Dunmore farm, demesne lands of around 120 acres and approximately 4,500 acres of the Garryricken and Kilcash estates.200 In the early 1920s Lord Ormonde was still receiving around £4,400 per annum in rents and almost £1,000 in grazing receipts.201 By 1935, most of this land had been purchased; there were no grazing rents; and invested income had been subjected to an assault from taxes and duties. As table 6.29 shows, gross income from the Ormonde's Irish estates and investments dwindled gradually from the period 1903-10 when it averaged almost £29,000 per annum to the decade 1931-40 when it fell to just over £15,500. Between 1903 and 1910, the bulk of income had still been rental. In 1903, a year's rent on the estate brought in around £18,600 while the collection of arrears from previous years brought in a further £19,800, a total of £38,400. This level of rental income continued until 1906 when it fell to £19,600 coinciding with sales under the 1903 Land Act. By 1950, the only rental income of significance was around £1,300 collected on urban property in Kilkenny city. In the meantime, interest on invested capital became the main source of income but it was never as significant as rental income had been. At its height it brought in just under £9,000 in 1925. From 1910 to 1940, it averaged £7,600 per annum. This was only about one third of what the rent roll of the estate had been less than half a century before. More importantly the rise in taxation, death duties and continued expenditure resulted in a decline in the capital invested upon which the family was dependent in the long term. There was a dramatic increase in expenditure in the 1911-20 period (see table 6.29). This was mainly due to outlay in death duties resultant upon the death of the third Marquis, James Butler, in 1919. In addition to all other expenses the family was faced with estate duties of almost £166,000. And in

194 order to meet them they were forced to take a number of steps that could only have had detrimental economic consequences in the long term. Firstly they were forced to sell off much of their English property and investments. For these they received £48,500 in 1920 and £131,700 in 1921.202 They were also forced to call in at least one mortgage and to take the other measures outlined below:203

Withdrawal of trust capital account £5,539 Withdrawal of interest on deposit receipts 1,224 Ditto 588 Withdrawal of deposit receipts to pay duties 16,651 Victory bonds cashed to pay duties 60,842 Ditto 5,934 Deposit receipts withdrawn to pay family charges 11.400 Total £102,178

The rise in expenditure from 1911 onwards also coincided with the rise in taxation and the imposition of super tax. Whereas the tax bill in 1893 had only been around £500 it rose to £5,200 in 1918.204 By 1935 the Ormondes had no option but to vacate the castle and move to England where the bulk of their investments lay. Like so many other Irish big houses it stood vacant for years afterwards.

195 Chapter 7

Landlord politics, 1880-1914 i Landlords and national politics in mid-Victorian Ireland Social and economic elitism meant that both national and local politics in Ireland remained the preserve of landlords and their associates until the last quarter of the nineteenth century. Although the 1850 Reform Act had quadrupled the county electorate, R.F. Foster claims it continued to be dominated by middling and strong farmers over whom landlords exerted their 'fair and legitimate influence'.1 Property qualification, the personal expense involved in contesting elections - between 1832 and 1878 a successful campaign could cost a candidate anything between £2,000 and £15,000 2 - and the ability of landlords to curry favour with farmers and priests when necessary had ensured landlord dominance in Irish politics. In the period 1832-59, 70 per cent of Irish M.P.s came from landed families. In the 1859 election, eighty-seven of the Irish M.P.s returned to Westminster were landowners. Sixty-five of these owned more than 2,000 acres each and twenty-nine owned more than 10,000 acres each.3 They were very much at home in a British parliament that was dominated by what Cannadine terms an 'integrated and supra-national class'4 which was bound together by the common ties of landownership. Similarly, the growing social bonds which had been forged by succeeding generations of Irish and British landed families on hunting fields, in clubs, during the Dublin and London seasons, and in the big houses helped to further consolidate political elitism. So, too, did marriage alliances. Of the 100 landlords in the sample in 1879, twenty-five of them had at one time or another represented Irish constituencies in the Commons. Of the eighteen of the twenty- five who married or on whom information was available regarding their wives, it would seem that marriage alliances helped enhance political standing just as they enhanced a landlord's economic position. Lord Waterford, Charles

197 Beresford, for example, married Nina Gardner whose father was an M.P. Sir Richard Levinge's two wives both had strong political connections. His first wife was the daughter of Col. Rolleston, M.P. for Watnall, while his second wife was the widow of D. Jones, a former M.P. for Portglas. Of the remaining fifteen, six married into the British peerage and the remainder married into the Irish peerage or gentry families (see table 7.2). The strengthening and consolidating of socio-political connexions that took place within the confines of the landlord class in the nineteenth century is emphasised by Niall Oliver in his introduction to the calendar of correspondence of the third duke of Leinster. In 1818 he had married a daughter of the third earl of Harrington. Oliver tells us that the significance of the correspondence derives from the unique intermediate position which Leinster occupied, with, as it were, a foot in both the English and Irish camp. The British government, particularly after Lord John Russell and the Whigs took office in 1846, constantly approached Leinster for information and opinions on various aspects of Irish affairs. Leinster was related to Russell which helps to explain the presence of several important letters which the prime minister wrote to Leinster direct instead of communicating indirectly via the Lord Lieutenant. Inevitably, his Irish compatriots regarded Leinster as a man of such importance and... made frequent endeavours to draw him into their various schemes and campaigns.5 By 1868, 73 of Ireland's 105 M.P.s came from landed families. Of these, sixteen were landowners from the sample group. The Irish Whig and Tory traditions which co-existed at this time was reflected in the fact that nine of these were returned as Liberals and the other seven as Conservatives. Amongst the Liberals were the only three Catholic landowners returned from the sample group - Edmund De La Poer, Viscount St. Lawrence and George Moore 6 (see table 7.1). In Ireland, the election had been fought on the question of the Disestablishment of the Irish Church. The sixty-six seats won by the Liberals in

198 Ireland provided Gladstone with half of the majority in the House of Commons which led to his appointment as prime minister in December of that year. R.F. Foster tells us that 'much of the landlord political culture subscribed to an idiosyncratic Toryism'.7 But certainly, a Whig tradition survived in Ireland until the early 1870s as was reflected in the 1868 election results. A turning point came in the 1874 election when the number of Liberals returned fell from 66 to 10.8 Only two Liberals from the sample group were returned - H.A. Herbert in Kerry and Otto Fitzgerald in Kildare. Part of the reason for this subsuming of Irish Liberalism was the growth of the Home Rule movement which won sixty seats.9 Five of the sample group landlords flirted temporarily with this movement and were returned as Home Rule M.P.s - Francis Conyngham, Viscount St. Lawrence, George Bryan, Lord Digby and Charles French.10 However, theirs was only a momentary aberration of support for the Home Government Association. Or at least that was the way the electorate perceived it. In the 1880 election, the true significance of which will be dealt with later on, only Digby contested it as a Home Ruler and he was unsuccessful, losing out to two other non-landlord Home Rulers." On the whole, the politics of the Irish landlord class was now determined by their support of the union in the face of the growing Home Rule movement. By the 1880s, landlords were overwhelmingly Unionist in their political outlook, which more than ever divided them from the growing Catholic Nationalist electorate.

ii Landlords and local politics in mid-Victorian Ireland In mid-Victorian Ireland, local government was also very much the preserve of landlords. They controlled the important administrative bodies such as the grand juries and boards of guardians, and monopolised positions such as high sheriffs and lieutenants of the counties.

199 The lieutenant of the county was appointed for life by the lord lieutenant. They were predominantly senior peers. Of the nineteen landlords in the sample (i.e. those in place in 1879) who held the position, seventeen were peers. The other two were Arthur Mac Murrough Kavanagh in Carlow and Edward Saunderson in Cavan, both of whom were not only substantial landowners but also very prominent and influential in the political arena. The lieutenant had control over the local militia which also gave him the authority to nominate persons as deputy lieutenants.12 Of the landowners in the sample who were in place in 1879, forty-six peers and twenty-five others were, or had been, deputy lieutenants. In 1831, the chief secretary, Edward Stanley, addressed a circular to lieutenants stating that their duties entailed 'rather by implication than expressly' functions of 'considerable delicacy', including the nomination of suitable deputy lieutenants, keeping the lord chancellor informed of the conduct and character of the magistracy, being aware of the political feeling in their respective counties, and communicating any information of importance to the government.13 Stanley concluded that the 'officers of the police' will be directed to furnish your lordship with periodical reports and they will in cases of urgency take your lordship's direction for their conduct. Upon such occasions, your lordship will of course lose no time in communicating with me for the information of the lord lieutenant.14 In 1832, the under secretary wrote to deputy lieutenants stipulating that they perform the same duties in their localities as the lieutenant did for the county as a whole. It stated that 'everything pertaining to the good order, and government of the county, falls within the range of the deputy's functions'.15 Although the position of lieutenant became more honorific as the century progressed with the growth in the number of government functionaries and constabulary in each county to whom ministers could refer, their opinions were still considered. In 1876, for example, Lords Rathdonnell and Monck,

200 lieutenants of Louth and Dublin, were consulted on the advisability of revoking the proclamation of their counties under the peace preservation act.16 Another lieutenant from the sample, Lord Carew, after hearing newly elected M.P. for Wexford, Tim Healy, proclaim in November 1880 that his mandate was 'to give expression on every occasion and in every way to the undying spirit of hostility which animates us all to British domination in Ireland', wrote to the chief secretary reporting Healy's speech as part of his duty and added that he regretted the spread of Land Leagueism in Wexford.17 The high sheriff was appointed annually by the lord lieutenant from a list of three names submitted to him by the judge of assize on the summer circuit.18 He represented the sovereign within the county in the execution of the law and was entrusted with the conduct of parliamentary elections, with the execution of writs and the selection of the grand jury. While he did have magisterial powers, they were rarely used, but he was still an important figure in legal administration at local level and could be called upon to take an active role in the upholding of the authority of the law in his designated county. Virginia Crossman points out that candidates for high sheriff were normally expected to be resident in the county for which they were nominated.19 A total of fifty-four of the sample landlords who were in residence in their respective big houses in 1879 were, or had been, high sheriffs. Of these only two were sheriffs of counties outside of that of their residences. These were R.C. Bowen whose home was at Bowen's Court in Cork and who was high sheriff for Tipperary in 1865, and Lord Robert Carew of Castleboro in Wexford who held the position in Waterford in 1847. A sheriff needed ample disposable income as upon appointment he was expected to enter into a recognizance for a sum of £1,000 before the barons of the exchequer.20 While in office he was also expected to provide salaries for a returning officer, for sheriffs bailiffs and a sub-sheriff who, in effect, carried out the day to day duties of the office.21 Twenty-two of the sheriffs in the

201 sample were peers. The majority of the remainder were large landowners. To be a high sheriff meant much in terms of personal and political gains, so undoubtedly financial sacrifices had often to be made especially by the lesser landowners in order to secure the position. The high sheriffs were the representatives of central government at local level, thus giving them great importance within the county. The high sheriff had the power of appointment of the grand jury which was responsible for using the county cess to finance public works in the county. In Co. Westmeath, no one could attend a grand jury assize dinner unless invited by the high sheriff.22 The position of custos rotulorum, the most senior civil office in the county, was largely an honorary position. He was charged with the custody of the county records and was responsible for the appointment of clerks of the peace before the passage of the county courts act in 1877.23 He also administered the oath of office to the sub-sheriff. Only eight of the sample landlords were found to have held this position and they were all peers. But as this office was usually held in conjunction with a county lieutenancy and the number of lord lieutenants was significantly higher it is possible many more were custodes rotulorum. The landed gentry and peers also played a large part in the administration of justice as justices of the peace who presided at the petty and quarter sessions. They were appointed by the county lieutenants who because of their own backgrounds had a special penchant for appointing fellow landowners to the benches. Thus, of the 100 sample landlords in 1879, eighty were listed as J.P.s. According to Sir Thomas Larcom in 1862, J.P.s liked 'the dignity of presiding at the bench and too many covet the commission for the name and status which it gives and for the ex-officio seat at the poor house board'.24 It was, to many, another position of power and status. Elizabeth, Countess Fingall, remembered as a child going on tiptoes past 'the door of my

202 father's study, which is called the Magistrate's room, and from which he rules the district as a firm and just autocrat'.25 The grand juries were also dominated by members of the landed class and their representatives such as land agents. The jury was appointed by the high sheriff for each assizes from the £50 freeholders or £100 leaseholders of the county.26 It could not exceed twenty-three members in all. The only restriction on the sheriffs choice was that he had to summon one resident from each barony. But as the number of baronies fell short of twenty -three in all counties with the exception of Cork, the sheriff had wide discretion in making his choice.27 The principal matters administered by grand juries were related to public works - the construction and repair of bridges and roads, the lowering of hills, the filling up of hollows, the erection and repair of gaols, court houses etc. To local landowners, the juries were essential to the maintenance of their influence over local affairs and local expenditure. For this reason Edward Wakefield, an English writer, described an Irish grand jury as 'a sort of county parliament in which numbers are anxious to have a seat'.28 Boards of guardians were established in 1838 to implement the Irish poor law of that year. This law divided Ireland into 130 new geographical units known as poor-law unions. Each was to have a workhouse for the impoverished and a board of guardians responsible for the levying and expenditure of the poor rate tax.29 In 1847, the number of unions was increased to 163. W.L. Feingold tells us that during and immediately after the famine 'the boards developed into an important administrative network, to which parliament assigned numerous new functions in areas related to poor relief, public health, the care of orphans, voter registration and emigration'.30 By the 1870s, the budget of the poor law administration outstripped that of the county and municipal authorities.31

203 The social conditions of the post-famine period and the method of appointment onto boards ensured that landlords exerted dominance. On average each board had twenty members. Guardians were chosen in annual elections by the ratepayers of a union. Both landlords and occupiers contributed to the poor rates (with the exception of occupiers whose holdings were valued at below £4 who were excluded from the tax) and so both could vote. Each board had also a number of appointees, commonly referred to as 'ex-officios'. These held permanent seats and they were drawn from local magistrates in descending order of the amount they paid in poor rates. As local magistrates were predominantly local landlords, landlords tended to monopolise these seats. In theory boards of guardians were representative of landlords and tenants. In practice, local landlords used their influence up to the 1870s to ensure that elected representatives were favourable to the continuance of their power. The system of election facilitated this. Voting papers were brought to the homes of electors who indicated their choice of candidates, signed the paper and returned it to the clerk of the union. As this procedure took some days to complete, Feingold tells us that 'there were many opportunities for interested parties, including landlords and their agents, to see how people had voted'.32 Therefore, up to the 1880s and the advent of the Land League, it was landlords who held the greater power to intimidate voters. Up to the late 1870s, elected guardians generally deferred to ex-officios who were landlords. Feingold found proof of this in the extent to which ex­ officios dominated the three offices on the boards. In 1877, 99 per cent of the 163 chairmen were ex-officios and so were 93 per cent of vice-chairmen and 69 per cent of deputy vice-chairmen. In the same year, thirty-two of the sample landlords held offices on boards of guardians. Twenty-six were chairmen, five were vice-chairmen and one was a deputy vice-chairman.

204 iii The assault on landlord politics at national level in late Victorian Ireland. In 1880, Benjamin Disraeli, the former Conservative prime minister wrote that the politics of Great Britain would 'probably for the next few years mainly consist of an assault upon the constitutional position of the landed class'.33 His words proved prophetic although he hardly envisaged how complete this assault would be over a relatively short period of time as the surge for mass démocratisation gained momentum. Within three decades the House of Lords would have lost its power of veto and by the end of the World War I the Commons would no longer be the preserve of landowners. In Ireland the assault on landlord politics had already begun in the 1870s. The period from the famine to the mid 1870s was one in which political organisations found themselves floundering. R.V. Comerford argues that 'the dominant feeling left behind by the famine was not a desire for self-government but a sense of embarrassment and inadequacy'.34 There was a great deal of uncertainty even amongst landlords some of whom, as we have seen, even found themselves temporarily flirting with the idea of Home Rule. Politically, as well as economically, landlords were in a very vulnerable position by the late 1870s. The period from the famine to the late 1870s had witnessed a redrawing of the social balance in rural Ireland. While landlords found themselves becoming increasingly more indebted, the farming class found itself increasingly more prosperous. The latter (as well as shopkeepers, publicans and traders) were clamouring for political representation that would reflect their new found prosperity. When economic depression hit in the late 1870s, landlords found themselves ranged against a political alliance of farmers, shopkeepers, publicans and labourers. This greater degree of political mobilisation had, to a large extent, been a consequence of economic developments from the 1860s. During the boom years from the 1860s to the mid-1870s farmers had borrowed

205 heavily from money-lending shopkeepers (gombeenmen). When depression began in the late 1870s, both town and country were affected and so farmers and shopkeepers shared common grievances. Hoppen points out that the growing indebtedness of farmers increased the 'potential power' of money- lending shopkeepers, while, on the other hand, the general depression also affected the latter 'and inclined them towards demonstrations of solidarity with the tenantry as a whole'.35 This new political alliance was soon exploited by Davitt, Parnell and the Land League. As early as the autumn of 1879, Davitt and Parnell had publicly urged that debts due to shopkeepers should take priority over rents due.36 When the Land League then began to acknowledge the plight of labourers, a powerful anti-landlord alliance came into being. Its formidable nature was enhanced by the continued influence exerted by priests on Nationalist politics, an influence that became most discernible when numerous Land League and National League branches began to operate under clerical influence in the 1880s. The slowly expanding electorate was now better placed than ever before as the Secret Ballot Act of 1872 diluted landlords' powers of intimidation at election time. Similarly from the Land Act of 1870 through the later acts of 1881 and 1885, landlords were to find that their powers over their tenants continued to wane as legislation regarding evictions, for example, strengthened the tenants' position while at the same time weakening theirs. Thus, while the agricultural depression which began in 1879 had calamitous economic consequences for Irish landlords, it also stimulated a newly politicized tenantry, who had become accustomed to a good standard of living, into political action to maintain it.37 The growth of the Land League signalled the beginning of the end of political deference towards landlords once and for all. At no stage previously did existing or aspiring Nationalist politicians direct such concerted hostility towards landlords from platforms all over the country as they did throughout

2 06 the 1880s. Their rhetoric was a potent weapon - it threatened violence not only upon landlords but upon anybody who might be tempted to offer them support in any way. In 1881 Timothy Healy proclaimed: 'We believe that landlordism is the prop of English rule, and we are working to take that prop away. To drive out British rule from Ireland we must strike at the foundation, and that foundation is landlordism.'38 In 1887, William O'Brien asserted: The grand army of Irish freemen will march unconquered and unconquerable until they have trampled down in its last ditch alien landlordism and ascendancy, and hauled down from it highest pinnacle the last shred of English misrule.39 Such speeches were highly inflammatory and the fact that they were met by 'loud applause', 'sustained applause', and 'shouts of hear, hear' suggest they often had the desired effect of inciting the masses to exact revenge for what was portrayed as years of suffering and hardship at the hands of usurping colonists. In their quest to prove this, Nationalist leaders had only to concentrate on the actions of a minority of rack-renting landlords to taint all others with the same brush. The rise in evictions during the land war simply added fuel to their fire. And propaganda, or even gossip, was a powerful weapon in rural Ireland. The truth of this is evident in the picture that tradition had painted of Irish landlords. As the marquis of Sligo pointed out: 'Before 1916, and for long after, the old time landlords were convenient bogeymen, gifts to a rising politician.'40 Landlords failed to react to the Land League crisis in any organised or effective way. The Protestant Defence Association founded in December 1880 was never as well subscribed to, for example, as its founders would have wished. The aims of the P.D.A. were basically to help landlords who found their estates subject to combinations. It hoped to do this by procuring tenants for evicted farms; by getting labourers to replace those forced to quit a landlord's employment because of intimidation; and to help shopkeepers or any

207 others who would be subjected to intimidation as a result of their dealings with landlords. At the end of its first year, the P.D.A. had received subscriptions of £15,800 from landlords.41 But initially 800 landowners had promised a contribution of ten shillings per £100 of the poor law valuation of their estates for three years. By the end of 1881, less than half had paid in conformity with this rate.42 Of the 100 sample owners, 57 made a total contribution of £1,844, an average of around £32 per landlord. The chairman of the P.D.A. was the earl of Courtown who contributed £150. Other prominent landowners and committee members such as Bruen, King-Harman and De Vesci contributed over £100. But it is difficult to be impressed by the average contributions of the others or the £5 of Lord Muskerry and the £8 of Lord Granard.43 In 1882, the number of subscribers from the sample group had fallen to thirty-five. However, Lord Fitzwilliam made a large donation of £1,000.44 The Catholic landowners from the sample also began to make donations, four of them contributing £52 between them. After 1882, the average number of subscribers from the sample fell to sixteen per annum and even during the plan of campaign the number failed to come anywhere near the high of fifty-seven in 1881. Within the country, the initiative had been taken from landlords and the lack of support for the P.D.A. suggested there were few who were willing to attempt to take it back. The anti-landlord resentment aroused by the Land League and the continued growth in Home Ruleism saw landlords routed in the 1880 election. R.F. Foster points out that a broad front existed, however precariously; and a political leadership was ready to utilise the crisis, backed by followers able to operate the complex associational mechanisms of a popular agrarian movement that would, unlike its predecessors, look forward rather than back, and set itself specific goals.45

208 The organisational strength of the Home Rule party saw a dramatic increase in the number of contested county elections. From 1832 to 1852 only 39.5 per cent of county elections had been contested. From 1853 to 1868, 38.5 per cent were contested. However, from the period after the general election of 1868 to the general election of 1885, the number of contested county elections rose dramatically to almost 70 per cent.46 At the same time, the number of political activists among the landlord class was diminishing.47 By the time of the 1880 election, landlords had abandoned political pluralism and former Whigs, Liberals, Repealers or Independents 'moved - unsteadily and rather helplessly - into the Tory fold'.48 But in twelve out of the twenty-six county constituencies with which this work is concerned, no Conservative contested the 1880 election. In total, eighteen Conservatives contested the other fourteen county constituencies but of these only three were elected - Arthur Loftus Tottenham for Leitrim, and Col. Edward Taylor and Ion Trant Hamilton for Dublin.49 The number of votes polled by candidates is not available for six of these county constituencies. The total number of electors in the other twenty was 87,613. The Conservative candidates secured 18,228 votes (21.5 per cent). In contrast fifty-six Home Rulers contested these county constituencies, forty-three of whom were elected. Amongst those from the sample to lose long standing seats was Arthur Mac Murrough Kavanagh who was devastated by his tenantry's rejection. He later wrote: 'The majority of my men broke their promise to me....That is the poisoned stab.'50 Henry Bruen also lost out in the same constituency, both he and Kavanagh being defeated by Home Rulers, Edmund Gray and Donald Mac Farlane. In Monaghan, Evelyn Shirley and Col. John Leslie both lost out to Liberals, John Givan and William Findlater. Traditionally seats in this county had devolved on their families and the Rossmores, Dartreys, and Maddens of Hilton Park. Writing retrospectively in the 1940s, Col. Leslie's son, Shane, was to write:

2 0 9 In the old days they fought each other in fierce elections - the Leslies and Shirleys against the Maddens and Rossmores. The borough and county seats devolved on them. Today their humble descendants...have no say in anything and not a ha'porth of politics left between them.51 The results of the 1880 general election showed that landlords had virtually lost all of their electoral power. Outside of Dublin County, the only successful Conservative candidate in the county constituencies of the area under study was Tottenham in Leitrim. But in the 1885 general election he was to poll only 541 votes, approximately one half of what he polled in 1880, and over 4,000 less than the successful Nationalist candidate, Michael Conway.52 In the two small boroughs of Portarlington and Bandon two other landlords were successful in 1880. These were Bernard Fitzpatrick and Percy Bernard.53 They were now the only two M.P.s drawn from the 100 families. As Hoppen puts it: The ability to coerce or attract Catholic electors, whether as tenants or as men expecting custom and patronage, had disappeared, with the result that the Tory vote was picked to its irreducible and ineffective Protestant bone.54 By 1885, Sir John Leslie had accepted this situation in Monaghan. Following the general election of that year, his wife wrote to Lord Salisbury: My dear good Sir John made a gallant fight.... Of course he never expected to win. He fought to call the muster roll of the Loyalist Protestants and well did they respond - so well that he can almost name the few absent ones.55 Out of a total electorate of 7,525 in the North Monaghan constituency, Leslie had polled 2,685 votes (35.6 per cent) in comparison to 4,055 votes (53.8 per cent) for Timothy Healy.56 This election had been fought in the aftermath of the passing of the Franchise and Redistribution Acts in 1884-5. These acts increased the Irish electorate from 222,000 to 740,000.57 Most of the new voters were small farmers and agricultural labourers, who were amenable to Nationalism. The acts also resulted in the absorption of most Irish boroughs into the new county

210 constituencies. The extension of the franchise and the redrawing of constituencies enabled Parnell and his party to capture 85 of the 103 Irish seats. Landlords who contested this election as Unionists put themselves in direct opposition to the public will of the vast majority of the people who were seeking Home Rule. It could be argued that landlords, therefore, destroyed any hopes they may have retained for political participation. But as a class, landlords began to feel that Unionism was the only hope they had of retaining their liberties. Unionism's newly formed organisation, the Irish Loyal and Patriotic Union put up fifty-two candidates in Munster, Connaught and Leinster. Not one of them was elected. As one historian has put it: 'The Irish Loyal and Patriotic Union's support for a host of no-hope candidates at the general election of 1885 was simply whistling to keep one's spirits up.'58 The I.L.P.U.'s candidates obtained only 31,772 votes against 231,454 for their Home Rule opponents.59 The futility of the I.L.P.U.'s efforts were reflected in humiliating defeats. In Longford North, for example, one of the sample landlords, J.M. Wilson, obtained only 163 votes, which translates as the support of 4.4 per cent of the total electorate. In Wexford North, Viscount Stopford obtained 9.3 per cent of the 9,768 votes on offer as compared to the elected John Redmond's 66.8 per cent. And in Mayo South, George Orme Mally obtained less than 1 per cent of the votes on offer as compared to the elected James O'Brien's 62 per cent.60 Even in the three Ulster counties, where Protestants made up a much higher proportion of the population, the situation was similar. Loyalist candidates contested six out of the eight constituencies. They were successful in none. Between them they obtained 10,740 votes against 24,901 for their Home Rule opponents. While Sir John Leslie obtained a fairly respectable 35.6 per cent of the votes in Monaghan North, S.E. Shirley could only obtain 12.8 per cent in Monaghan South.61

211 Thus, within a period of less than twenty years, landlords had been forced to surrender political representation at national level and to accept that there was little probability of them ever regaining it in the face of growing démocratisation. Their acceptance of this was evidenced in the 1886 general election when Loyalist candidates contested only nine out of the sixty-six constituencies in the twenty-six counties and five of these were in the Ulster counties of Monaghan and Donegal. Of the eighty-six Home Rule M.P.s elected in 1885, forty-four were of the lower professions - shopkeepers, farmers and wage earners; fifteen were merchant bankers, rentiers or industrialists; twenty-two belonged to the higher professions.62 Only five were landlords of estates of more than £1,000 valuation. From this general election onward, landlords could not realistically hope to win a seat in a constituency in the twenty-six counties save that of Dublin University unless they stood as Home Rulers like Sir Walter Nugent who represented Westmeath from 1907 to 1918, Sir Thomas Esmonde who sat for Dublin, Kerry and Wexford at various times between 1885 and 1918, and, of course, Charles Stewart Parnell. Only four members of the 100 sample families sat for a constituency in the twenty-six counties post-1880. They were Walter Mac Murrough Kavanagh who won the Carlow seat in the 1908 by-election as a Nationalist. He was replaced by another Nationalist, Michael O'Malley, in the 1910 general election. (Kavanagh had contested the 1892 Kilkenny North seat as a Unionist but was heavily defeated by the anti-Pamellite, Patrick MacDermott.)63 Bernard Fitzpatrick was M.P. for Portarlington 1880-83. He resigned his seat in 1883 when he succeeded as Lord Castletown.64 By 1885, the borough of Portarlington had disappeared. Bryan Cooper of Markree who became M.P. for Dublin South following the 1910 general election and Horace Plunkett, son of Lord Dunsany, who had been victorious in the same constituency in 1892, were the only Unionist representatives from the 100 families sitting in Westminster at any time during the period. However, in the 1886 general election, Edward

212 Saunderson of Castlesaunderson successfully contested the North Armagh seat on the Unionist ticket having realised the impossibility of doing so in his native Cavan. He continued as M.P. for this area until his death in 1906. iv The assault on landlord politics at local level in late Victorian Ireland. While these developments were taking place at national level, landlord political power was also being corroded at local level. In the late 1870s, the poor-law boards, because they were the only administrative body in rural Ireland with directly elected members, became specifically targeted by the Land League as potential local power bases. Increasingly the Land League put forward candidates who would oppose the landed element and dethrone them from the offices which they virtually monopolised. Parnell made his strategy clear in an open letter to the Freeman's Journal on 1 March 1881 when he wrote: It is of the highest importance that the people of Ireland should be encouraged to wrest the local government of their country from the landlord classes. I trust, thus, that the local branches of the League will everywhere see that all exertions are made to secure the return of Land League candidates as poor law guardians and to drive from office the agents, bailiffs, and landlord nominees who have hitherto been allowed to fill these important positions.65 Fein gold in his comprehensive studies of the poor law guardians found that wherever the Land League was successful in winning a majority they proceeded to seize the offices from the landed representatives and their claimants. He calculated that between 1880 and 1882 from 7 to 10 per cent of offices changed hands and that by the mid-1880s the tenants controlled a majority of the chairmanships, vice-chairmanships and deputy chairmanships.66 How did the experience of the 100 families in the sample group illustrate this change? In 1870, around a decade before Land League infiltration, thirty-

213 two offices throughout the countiy were held by members of these families. By 1886, this number had fallen to a total of twenty-six.67 With the exception of Edward Cooper of Markree, Charles Doyne of Wells and Henry Bruen, all were peers. In Gorey union, for example, Lord Courtown was chairman. Charles Doyne was vice-chairman. In Dingle in Co. Kerry, Lord Ventry was chairman while his son, Edward De Moleyns was vice-chairman. In Mayo, Lord John Browne of Westport house was chairman of Westport union while the same position was held by Lord Dartrey in Cootehill, Lord De Vesci in Abbeyleix and Lord Granard in Longford. In 1889, the Cork Examiner enthused about the disappearance of landlords from office: The so called gentry have been driven from their time honoured strongholds in the public boards, the representation of which is now in the hands of the representatives of the people. Nationalists, at the present, abound in poor law and town commission bodies, and have even invaded the sanctity of the very bench itself. Bandon is no longer the citadel of that ignorant blustering Orangeism that used to vow eternal damnation to everybody who dealt in brass money or who wore wooden shoes. Bullies like Bence-Jones no longer rule the roost in the courthouse at Clonakilty.68 By 1900, the situation had changed even more dramatically. The Local Government of Ireland Act of 1898 abolished ex-officio poor law guardians. This further diminished landlords' powers of representation and influence on these boards. By 1900, only three representatives of the 100 families held offices on boards of poor law guardians. In Dingle, Lord Ventry and his son the Hon. Edward De Moleyns retained their positions as chairman and vice- chairman. In Cootehill, Capt. E.P. Smith of Bellamont Forest had replaced the earl of Dartrey as chairman. In none of the other counties were any of the other 100 families represented on the boards.69 It was, in fact, the realisation of the rather premature evidence submitted to the Bessborough commission by Charles Uniacke Townshend in 1881 when he proclaimed: Since the date of Mr Parnell's speech...when he stated that the landed interest was the comer stone of the connection with 214 England and that the comer stone was to be plucked out, broken up, and destroyed, from that hour out the conspiracy has been complete.70 What was perhaps more significant was the fact that by 1880 the landlord dominated grand juries had lost most of their influential administrative duties to the poor law guardians who in 1851 had taken over the direction of local dispensaries. Under successive health and safety legislation such as the Sanitary Act of 1866 and the Public Health Acts of 1874 and 1878 the juries again lost out to the guardians as administering authorities.71 By the turn of the century the poor law boards were being regarded as important stepping stones in the fulfilment of political ambitions by the likes of John Heffeman in Kildare. He had founded a Land League branch in Kildare town in 1880, and secured a position on the Athy board of poor law guardians the following year. By 1900, he had become secretary of Kildare County Council.72 In 1887, Richard Stacpoole was reporting from Ennis that 'the board of guardians now are simply a Land League club. They give no situations to anybody who is not a Land Leaguer'.73 And newly composed boards were quick to assert their Nationalism. In 1901, it was proposed at a meeting of Monaghan poor law guardians to send an address of welcome to Unionist M.P. Horace Plunkett on his visit to the town to open the local agricultural show. However, Patrick Whelan asserted that: It was very inconsistent for a Nationalist board appointed on political principles to present an address to a member of the government that had done so much to ruin their country....Horace Plunkett had don a good deal to develop the industrial resources of the country and to help the people in many ways, but still they would not forget he was a bitter Unionist.74 The majority of his colleagues concurred with him and the proposed address was rejected. This the Unionist Belfast Newsletter denounced claiming: 'The reasoning shows the contemptible depth to which Irish Nationalism can descend.'75

215 The assault on the offices of the poor law guardians had, as in the case of John Heffeman, provided valuable experience to aspiring Nationalist politicians at local level, experience which was invaluable when the duties of the grand juries were placed in county councils under the Local Government Act of 1898. The functions of the grand juries lost their political authority as the act distributed local government between county councils, urban district councils and rural district councils. After 1898, the grand juries merely gathered at the opening of the assizes to receive the judges' address. On the county councils, as on the poor law boards, there was little room for landlords. While the vast majority of the 100 landlords in the sample in 1879 were grand jurors, as were many of their sons or even agents, only fourteen became county councillors after the first elections in 1899 and only 50 per cent of these were actually elected - Walter Mac Murrough Kavanagh in Carlow, Lord Frederick Fitzgerald in Kildare, the earl of Dunraven in Limerick, Hon. Peter Westenra in Monaghan, Lord Castletown in Queen's, Lord Powerscourt in Wicklow and Sir Richard Levinge in Westmeath. The other seven were nominated by the grand juries in their respective counties. This was a method of election to the councils which was provided for under the 1898 act and used only for the first elections. Councillors included the Hon. Robert Dillon in Galway, Lord Geashill and EJ. Beaumont-Nesbitt in King's, J.M. Wilson in Longford, J.R. Garstin in Louth and Charles Doyne in Wexford. Significantly only three of the fourteen were then elected to offices on the councils. Westenra was secretary in Monaghan as was Levinge in Westmeath, while Kavanagh was vice-chairman in Carlow.76 Indeed, the only landlord who held a chairmanship on a county council was Sir Thomas Esmonde in Wexford who held the position as a nationalist for most of the period from 1899 to 1914.77 The composition of the first county councils, because o f the nominative powers of the grand juries, did not truly reflect the swing away from landlords

216 that had taken place at local level but the composition of the second term councils did. By 1904, only Kavanagh and Dunraven from the sample retained their seats. There was no member of the 100 families on the councils of twenty- four of the twenty-six counties.78 By 1912, Kavanagh was the only elected member who remained, although Lord Rossmore was co-opted as a member by Monaghan County Council.79 The previous year, Michael E. Knight, a leading Monaghan Unionist, was not exaggerating when he proclaimed at Craigavon: 'Living as we do in the very south of Ulster we find ourselves, though a large minority, without any adequate representation on our local boards and all public appointments in the gift closed to us.'80 There were only three Unionists councillors out of thirty in Monaghan in 1911 despite the fact that Protestants made up about one quarter of the county's population. Their position was adequately summed up by the J.C. Madden the following year when he said: We who live here know how the Local Government Act has been used to keep us out of every office of profit in our county....! am glad to say that Protestants and Catholics do work in harmony on many committees in our county, but there is no salary attached to a place on those committees. Whenever a place is going to which a salary is attached then I say the principle acted upon is that no Unionist need apply.81 There was much truth in what Madden had to say regarding the distinction between committee membership and the appointment of salaried officers. Councils established various committees, such as agricultural committees and technical education committees to oversee local affairs and basically to advise councils on the carrying out of their functions. These positions were unsalaried. In Monaghan, Catholics and Protestants worked together on such committees. But when it came to the council appointing paid officers, the situation was quite different. It was claimed in 1911 that Nationalists in Monaghan had been awarded all clerical and professional positions, thirty-seven in all, by the council.82 As late as the mid 1920s, the

217 amount paid in salaries to officials in Monaghan was £22,000 of which Protestants got nothing.83 A study of the minutes of Monaghan County Council for the intervening years verifies these claims as the present writer was unable to find any case in which a Protestant was appointed to a salaried office. What happened in Monaghan was very much a local example of what became a national trend throughout the twenty-six counties under study. What county councils were doing was effectively reversing the policy of their predecessors on the grand juries who had tended, where possible, to keep influential appointments in the hands of landlords and their associates. As the Morning Post pointed out after the first elections were held: It would have been absurd to expect that in the first flush of their new powers, the democratic electorate of the Irish counties should have returned the landed gentry, whom they have been taught to regard as hereditary enemies and oppressors.84 Ongoing controversy regarding the appointment of committee members and paid officers had, in fact, come to a head in 1906-07. Landlords like Col. Edward Saunderson were infuriated by their lack of representation. Writing retrospectively to The Times in 1906, he asked: What has been the lesson taught by Irish history in the last few years? The local government bill was passed for Ireland which conferred on the Irish people the power of proving their love of fair play and their ardent desire to fraternise with their Protestant fellow countrymen. What happened? In almost every case every Protestant and Unionist was swept out of public existence, so far as was possible, myself amongst the rest, and Roman Catholics and Nationalists given entire control of these Irish councils where Protestants and Unionists found themselves in a minority....We can now point to what has been actually done in recent years as absolutely proving the accuracy of the estimate we had formed of the inevitable result of placing the Irish priest and Nationalists in a position of authority.85 This was just one of many claims by Unionists in general that they were under-represented on county councils throughout the south and subsequently discriminated against when it came to appointments. An article in The Times in

218 May 1907 showed that there was a total of only eighteen Unionists out of 694 councillors in the provinces of Munster, Connaught and Leinster. In the three Ulster counties, Unionists held only five out of eighty-six seats.86 The Nationalist Freeman's Journal tried to dilute claims of discrimination by publishing statistics on county council appointments. But these statistics only proved that there was little room for Unionists on county councils. In Co. Cork, for example, all fifty-two councillors were Catholic and Nationalist. There were only ten Protestants out of eighty-six members on the agricultural committee appointed by it and only two Protestant out of thirty members of the technical instruction committee. Twenty-four out of 119 paid officers were Protestants. In Roscommon, there was one Protestant on the council. Four out o f the fifty-four committee members were Protestant as were eight out of fifty-two paid officers.87 The powers bestowed on county councils also meant that such landlord dominated posts as those of high sheriff, sub-sheriff and lieutenants of the county became gradually less important entering the twentieth century. By 1900, nineteen of the 100 sample landlords still held the title of lieutenant or custos rotolorum of their respective counties, but their official duties were unimportant in the day to day administration of local affairs, at least in comparison to the duties falling to the Nationalist county councils and poor law guardians.88 In the 1880s, a shrievalty or sub-shrievalty carried a degree of local authority, but appointment only served to place the recipient in the unenviable position of public opponent to the majority of the local population as the land war gained momentum. As sheriffs and sub-sheriffs were authorised to requisition troops to protect judges, witnesses and prisoners in the event of the local police force being perceived as inadequate they found themselves very much in the front line of landlord-tenant tensions.89 However, administrative changes gradually whittled away any local authority sheriffs had held. By 1919,

2 1 9 when Col O'Callaghan Westropp was appointed high sheriff of Clare, not even Dublin Castle knew what his duties should be.90 Similarly, landlords’ powers as magistrates had become increasingly restricted by the appointment of stipendiary magistrates who were paid, who made a career out of the position and who reported regularly to the Castle.91 On this issue, W.E. Vaughan concludes that landlords 'from being the governors of the country side,...became merely rich men who happened to live there, taking a prominent and ornate rather than an indispensable part in its affairs.'92 Furthermore, the more confident county councils became the more they questioned the right of local landlord officials to interfere in any aspect of local administration. In the past, the high sheriff, for example, had the power to appoint local officials such as court house keepers. In 1901, the high sheriff of Mayo, Robert William Orme, exercised his right to make this appointment. Accordingly he appointed a Protestant to this post. But he immediately drew upon himself the wrath of the county council which was totally Catholic and Nationalist. Its members obviously believed that this type of appointment should be their preserve. The chairman of the county council, Conor O' Kelly M.P., called an emergency meeting of the council to consider Orme's action.93 At the meeting the secretary of the council pointed out that a niece of the late keeper, Miss Staunton, who was a Catholic, was willing to discharge the duties of the post.94 The chairman declared: No one can accuse me of being a bigot, but I say it becomes intolerable in this Catholic county of Mayo, when we find a Catholic lady dispossessed and a man of Mr. Reid's religious ways of thinking put in her place....I say we should test the legality of the appointment in the High Court.95 Within days the high sheriff succumbed to the threatening high court proceedings and appointed Miss Staunton. The Freeman's Journal claimed: 'The action of the sheriff in cancelling the appointment of Reid., .is attributed to the significant action of the Mayo County Council'.96

220 A similar controversy erupted in Tipperary in December 1901 when the county council objected to the appointment of another Protestant as returning officer for the forthcoming elections. K.E. O'Brien M.P. asserted: They were a popularly elected body and it was their duty to make popular appointments. He understood there were [sic] £1,200 or £1,500 o f the people's money to be expended on these elections. The over-whelming majority of the people were Nationalists. He was sure they could find a man amongst them perfectly competent to carry out these elections in a satisfactory manner. It was absurd to talk of not letting politics enter these matters when they had such a brilliant example in the action of their predecessors who never allowed a Nationalist to have a look in in such appointments.97 Another member of the council, Mr. O'Dwyer, went a step further: Heretofore we know that every position was held [in the past] by those diametrically opposed to the people's organisation and I would go a little further and say there is general dissatisfaction with the action of this council at their last meeting in putting on the new county agricultural and technical education committee such men as Davy Higgins, Arnold Power and Count Moore. [All held Unionist sympathies].98 Sixteen of the councillors voted in favour of O'Brien's motion, six against. It was decided to elect a returning officer at the next meeting to be held on 2 January 1902." At a meeting o f Louth County Council in July 1902, it was proposed that as the council paid the salary of the sub-sheriff they should have sole control over the appointment.100 In December 1904, the chairman of the Longford council enquired if they as a body had the power to strike the name of James Mackay Wilson of Currygrane off the agricultural committee because his father had travelled to England to speak at Unionist meetings.101 This, the Daily Express opined, was 'deplorable' and contended that that type of spirit was 'not confined to any one county or group of counties' but was 'rampant' throughout the country since 1898.102

221 v Landlord apprehensions of Home Rule The socio-political developments that took place in Ireland from the early 1880s left landlords and their associates apprehensive about their prospects under a Home Rule government. Following the Franchise and Redistribution Acts of 1884-5 and the results of the 1885 general election old party divisions were forgotten as former Liberals and Conservatives and Protestants of all denominations and classes united as Unionists 'in an attempt to maintain minority ascendancy interests and influence'.103 In 1886, the provost of Trinity college, J.H. Jellet, himself one of the few top ranking Unionist organisers in the twenty-six counties under study who was not a landlord, emphasised the necessity of such a united front: You must absolutely for the present sink all minor differences. I know that we are divided on many points, and I don't deny their importance; but in the face of the danger with which we are now threatened, you must allow these points to sink into oblivion, and I ask of you all to do so. I ask of you all to forget whether you are Whigs or Tories, Protestants or Roman Catholics, and only think of yourselves as citizens of a country which is assailed by the greatest danger that has ever threatened its existence.104 Why did landlords oppose Home Rule as a political movement and what were the perceived dangers that Jellet referred to? Landlord apprehensions can clearly be seen from a study of the various pamphlets published by their Unionist organisations, the Irish Loyal and Patriotic Union (founded mainly by landlords in 1885) and the Irish Unionist Alliance (a reformed I.L.P.U. founded in 1891). The growing apprehensions regarding Home Rule coincided with the growth in agitation and rise in crime during the land war and the plan of campaign. W.E. Vaughan has done much valuable work pointing out the taxonomical problems facing the constabulary when categorising offences reported to them pointing out that they invariably inflated agrarian outrages by including outrages 'that were only remotely agrarian'.105 Nevertheless the

222 statistics available to and used by him point to the fact that crime was endemic in rural society during the land war. From the decades 1860-69 to 1880-89, homicides had increased by 230 per cent; firing into dwellings by 500 per cent; fires by 414 per cent; the number of threatening letters sent by 656 per cent and other agrarian related crimes by 545 per cent (see table 7.4). This means that the total number of agrarian crimes returned by the constabulary rose by almost 580 per cent in a twenty year period. Furthermore, if we isolate the years 1879-82, the peak years of the land war, from the eleven years spanning 1879-89, we get a better indication of the extent of agitation that existed at the height of Land Leagueism. For these four years alone, 47 per cent of total agrarian outrages were committed. 61 per cent of all homicides for the eleven year period were carried out between 1879 and 1882, as were 64 per cent of firing into dwellings, 56.5 per cent of fires, 71 per cent of threatening letters and 61 per cent of other agrarian related crimes (see table 7.5). Vaughan has also shown that disputes were predominantly within tenant families, between tenants and tenants, tenants and sub-tenants, and on those who took evicted lands.106 Yet, over the extended period 1848-80 he argues that landlords, who along with their agents and bailiffs made up only 5 per cent of the tenants in number, still attracted 35 per cent of agrarian outrages.107 'This', he concludes, 'may have been a small fraction of total outrages, but it was a lot for a small group'.108 Landlords, however, escaped the more serious type of outrage relatively unscathed. The only landlord from the sample group, and indeed the only landlord of first rank, to have been murdered in Ireland in the post-famine period up to 1878 was the third earl of Leitrim assassinated in Donegal that year. Even during the land war itself, they remained relatively free from physical danger. Of 57 agrarian-related murders from 1880 to 1882, 4 were of

223 landlords; of 145 attempted murders 10 were made on landlords; and of 322 cases of firing into dwellings only 33 were directed against them.109 But it was the judicial system's enforced inability to do anything about the rise in crime that caused most concern to landlords and their representatives and which made them apprehensive of their future prospects under Home Rule. Samuel Hussey, a leading land agent in the South went so far as to claim that one fifth of all crimes were not actually being reported because of fear.110 In Kerry, a resident magistrate, Heffeman Considine, claimed in the 1883 that intimidation in the county was not very active simply because 'the League and the whole system down there is so well organised that no one offends against it'.111 He went on: 'Suppose the League condemns an individual action...that man unless precaution is taken to guard him will be the victim of outrage on his person or property'.112 Local R.I.C. district inspector Davis agreed with him claiming that 'people dare not say who carried out crimes'.113 James Hamilton, a Cork judge, reported: 'If there is evidence of a conspiracy, no doubt the magistrates would send the case for trial, but no jury in the country parts of Ireland would convict'.114 In Donegal, Mayo or Galway he was certain that in an agrarian case 'you will have men in the jury box who sympathise with the criminals, and as to the rest of the jury it would be as much as their lives are worth possibly if they were for conviction'.115 The rhetoric of Nationalist politicians who began to use the land war as a stepping stone to political independence convinced landlords of what they would face under a Nationalist and Catholic government based in Dublin. They watched with apprehension Nationalist leaders exploit the patriotism of the tenantry linking the land struggle with the whole question of Home Rule. John Dillon informed the Clanricarde tenants in 1886 that they would serve 'the cause of Ireland and o f Irish nationality' by establishing the plan of campaign there.116 An editorial in The Times the same year argued that the plan of campaign was politically motivated, 'a deliberate attempt to break down law

224 and sweep away property in order to accomplish the overthrow of the Imperial authority in Ireland'.117 Arthur Smith-Barry, the leading opponent of the plan, argued it had 'really nothing to do with landlords and tenants' but was 'a great political movement started by the leaders of the Irish rebellion to prevent the possibility of government being carried out in Ireland by the English government'.118 The Irish Landowners' Convention also perceived the political struggle to be intrinsically linked to the agrarian struggle. During the second Home Rule debate in 1893, it petitioned the Commons arguing that the passing of the bill: Would place the government of Ireland, civil and religious liberty, and lives and properties of her people in the hands of men whose public policy in the past - and especially their actions upon agrarian questions - has been condemned as immoral.119 This petition summarised the economic arguments propounded by the anti-Home Rule pamphlets distributed by the various Unionist organisations in Britain at the time when it continued as follows: (Home rule) would inevitably result in reopening and aggravating all Irish questions and difficulties, would entail largely increased taxation, the ruin of Irish commerce, the turning adrift of large numbers of her artisan and landowning classes to seek for employment in England or elsewhere, would plunge our country into confusion, anarchy and civil war, and would compel the Imperial parliament to devote an amount of time and labour to the affairs of Ireland far greater than has been found necessary at any time since the establishment of the Union.120 Therefore, the prevailing attitude of the land and political movements left landlords fearful of their position in a Home Rule Ireland. It was one thing to be subjected to intimidation while there still existed protection from the British administration; it was quite another to be left stranded in a self governing Ireland dominated by an Irish parliament that, according to the I.L.P.U. in 1886, would be: Composed of the same elements as are found among the Irish members now gathered under the banner unfurled by Mr Parnell; only its members will be more numerous, more hostile to the 225 friends of England, more unscrupulous - if that be possible - more rapacious, less restrained by decency or prudence then they are now. And then there is the further consideration, that then they will have full power to give effect to their hostility.121 The impact of the land war on landlords, with its social and economic consequences, had at least a psychological impact. From a political point of view they saw the agitation as an anti-landlord conspiracy that had its roots not only in the land struggle but in the political struggle for Home Rule as well. Many landlords were demoralised by how indiscriminate it was in that it affected the improving landlords in the same way it affected negligent ones. Finlay Dun reported in 1881 that the earl of Fitzwilliam's estate run as it was by a 'liberal and generous landlord' was 'still subjected to League agitation'.122 When his neighbour the earl of Meath returned to London from a visit to his Wicklow estates in 1884, his wife noted in her diary: Pleased to get him back again safe and sound from Ireland, where he had a dreadful time of it, what with Bray town commissioners to whom he went to hand over the market house and the Land Leaguers. They even threatened his life on Christmas Day. So much for gratitude amongst the poor, easily-led Irish!123 According to his evidence to the Bessborough commission, Sir William Gregory had never evicted nor raised rents on his Galway estate. When agricultural depression threatened his tenants in 1879, he reduced his rents by ten per cent. He wrote: 'Whatever naughty deeds I have done I always felt the strongest sense of duty to my tenants and I have great affection for them.'124 With the spread of the Land League in Galway and the influence it exerted over his tenantry, he soon found his affection unreciprocated. When he returned to Coole in 1880 having been governor-general of Ceylon he noticed that 'the combination is creeping on like lava, filling every cranny'.125 Tenants no longer doffed their caps to him. In 1881, they even rejected his offer of a ten per cent abatement in rents. Later that year he declared to a friend:

I must tell you with deep regret that I feel so deeply the way I have been treated that it is my intention no longer to reside at 226 Coole.... I will certainly not expose my wife and child to the risk of vengeance and outrage....I meant to dismantle the house and to remove everything of value to a safe place, and if they blow up the residence, I shall be very much obliged to them - 1 only regret that I have laid out very foolishly so much money on it of late years which I did from the happiness of living among tenants who had I thought, the affection for me which I had for them.126 By the mid 1890s, landlord opinion regarding the prospect of being governed by Home Rulers had changed very little. In 1894, the I.L.C. passed a resolution stating that: It is a matter of notoriety that both before and since 1886 the leaders and other members of the same party have delivered hundreds of speeches in Ireland, inciting the Irish tenants to withold payment of their rents, and promising that if Home Rule were granted the Irish legislature would reduce or abolish rents, or compel the landlords to sell on terms to be fixed by the tenants.127 The fact that landlords retained a substantial amount of land even after the passing of the Land Act of 1903 meant they inevitably drew comparisons between the activities of the Land League in the 1880s and the activities of the United Irish League in the early twentieth century. In 1900, threatening letters sent to landlords in Cavan, 'failed in their effect, but they unpleasantly recalled] the practice of Land League days'.128 In December 1901, attempts to boycott Lord Ashtown were more 'feeble' but the inspector general contended they were still indicative of the return of land agitation that had characterised the 1880s.129 Indicating his distress at William O'Brien's writing in The Irish People, he went on to claim that it

indicated that a vigorous policy is to be adopted; and he [O'Brien] makes reference to the old cries of distress and inability to pay rent and harshness of landlords which have formed the basis of all Irish agitation in the last century.130 In 1906, the I.U.A. published and widely circulated a pamphlet entitled, The new Home Rule and the old objections. In it, the I.U.A. argued that the U.I.L.:

227 Competes very strongly at times with the castle in the government of Ireland - having legal courts of its own, and a method at once cruel and unscrupulous of enforcing its decrees against those who transgress its despotic rule (It) affords a fair criterion of what Nationalist rule would be over a Unionist minority.131 To support its claim, the pamphlet referred to a meeting of the Dromore U.I.L. in Co. Sligo in August of that year, quoting from the Sliga Champion as its source of information. A.P. Scott came before their meeting and said his name had appeared in the press as having acted contrary to the rules of U.I.L. He was, he said, sorry for having done so, and promised in future not to transgress but to support the organisation as best he could.132 Next came Thomas Rolleston apparently 'in a most penitential mood'. He pleaded guilty to the several charges brought against him and promised 'not to do any thing contrary to the rules of the organisation in future, and said he might as well be dead as under the censure of public opinion any longer'.133 The pamphlet concluded: These acts of lawless tyranny have not been done under an Irish native parliament with an executive responsible to it. They have been done under the rule of Dublin Castle, with a 'conciliatory' executive in control. What would be the state of things in Ireland if the loyal minority found themselves in close conflict with the powers that would represent a glorified U.I.L.134 The changing composition of the Home Rule party and the identification of the Home Rule movement with the land struggle, especially with the class antagonism of the Land League and later the U.I.L., therefore, convinced many landlords that an Irish parliament would be dominated by lower class Catholics with little respect for persons or property. The close association of the Roman Catholic Church with both the social and political revolution led to another great Unionist fear that Home Rule would equal Rome rule. The bonds between Irish Nationalism and the Catholic Church were deep and enduring, a fact not lost on the general Protestant population. The I.L.P.U. believed that it was largely the influence of the

228 Catholic clergy on agitators that was responsible for the political overthrow of landlords. After the general election of 1885, the I.L.P.U. published a comprehensive pamphlet recording the opinions of defeated candidates. Its introduction claimed that: The statements here made demonstrate that the majorities by which Mr Parnell's nominees were elected were obtained by widespread and perfectly organised terrorism, by undue influence and other flagrant violations of the chief provisions of the Ballot Act and by the apathy of the Unionists.135 A landlord who stood in Connaught decried the fact that: The Catholic clergymen resolved themselves into an electioneering agency not only canvassing the electorate, but collecting money from house to house to pay the Sheriffs deposit.... The election in the fishing village, many of the families of which are employed by us, were known to be in my favour. They were not only abused and insulted, but I have heard from different sources that they were threatened with drowning by a priest in case they went out to sea, as they wished to do, and they abstained from voting.... Men who have been in our employ for twenty years were got over by their priests and are now miserable enough about it. 136 Another landlord candidate who stood in Leinster was angered by the fact that: In several cases labourers, who had intimated their intention to vote for Loyalist candidates were sent for by the priest and lectured as to how he was to vote. On one occasion at a Chapel I have heard that the curate stated the ballot was supposed to be secret, but he would, before a week was over, know how every man voted.137 Of course, the extent of the misery of the Connaught landlord's employees who were forced to vote against him is questionable. And, indeed, the authenticity of all of these quotations may rightly be regarded as being questionable - only vague details of those to whom they are attributed are given. Nevertheless, they are interesting in the light they throw on landlords' perceptions of the interference of the Catholic Church in matters political. Further north, Unionists believed that the Catholic clergy had been largely responsible for the so called 'invasion of Ulster' which was initiated by

22 9 the election of Timothy Healy as an M.P. for Monaghan in 1883. The Belfast Newsletter reported on the clergy's role in Healy's campaign: The priests of the county were his sponsors his canvassers, his personation agents and his poll clerks. I do not speak merely of the younger clergy...I include the older clergy, the PPs, the canons and the higher dignitaries.138 Healy's greatest debt was supposedly to Canon Hoey of Castleblayney who, it was said, took men from their sick beds and their death beds and dragged them to the polls.139 In the 1885 general election Healy defeated Sir John Leslie. Leslie's son later claimed: 'The priests had gathered the voters at the polls and sat watching them till assured that the dear and noble Sir John Leslie was defeated at the Home Rule elections.'140 At a national level, landlords had seen and decried the active involvement of Bishop O'Donnell of Raphoe and Bishop Kelly of Ross in the land movement. At its height the plan of campaign had the support of all but a few Irish ecclesiastics.141 The parochial clergy figured prominently in the local leadership. They, too, promulgated the evils of landlordism from one end of Ireland to the other. Fr. Gaughran of Carrickmacross, Co Monaghan, vowed to 'trample upon landlordism with the help of God'.142 Fr. Lane in Cork promised to continue his role in the agitation until landlordism was 'utterly crushed'.143 In 1888, Fr Casey, parish priest of Mount Collins in Limerick asserted: 'I don't care who the landlord is, no matter what sort he is, if he was an angel from Heaven he is a bad man providing he is a landlord.'144 For Col. Edward Saunderson there was a distinct fear of sectarian reprisals in the event of Home Rule becoming a reality. He feared that Protestants would be denied religious liberty under a Catholic dominated parliament. Saunderson believed that the sectarian riots which broke out in Cork in the 1890s in reaction to Protestant street preachers was a foretaste of what was to come. Writing to The Times in 1894, he claimed: It is hard to believe that the English or Scotch non Conformists can come to any other conclusion than to one - namely, that the 230 Irish Protestants were justified in regarding the establishment of Home Rule in Ireland as utterly destructive of all prospects of religious freedom. We ask any fair minded man what will be the condition of the Protestant population in the south of Ireland should the likes of the Cork mob and others of the same kind be made the rulers of Ireland.145 During the revolutionary period from 1919 to 1923 such fears were often more real than exaggerated, especially in Co. Cork.146 In the meantime the promulgation of the Ne Temere decree which discouraged marriage between Catholics and Protestants and which insisted that the children of mixed marriages should be brought up as Catholics did little to diminish any Protestant apprehensions. In June 1912, the Irish Women's Unionist Association presented a petition to parliament signed by over 104,000 people. It protested vehemently against Home Rule, one of its main points of contention being that: The late iniquitous enforcement of the Ne Temere decree which specially affects the women of Ireland and the slavish acquiescence of the Irish Nationalist members of Parliament in its operation demonstrated that in our Irish parliament the natural instincts of humanity would be of no avail as against the dictates of the Roman church.147 Finally, it was feared by Irish landlords that Home Rule would sever their much cherished link to the British crown. They did not have the same degree of attachment to successive British administrations which they blamed for the precarious positions in which they found themselves by the late 1880s. Indicative of this is the fact that political resolutions of the Orange Order, or the I.L.P.U and I.U.A tended not to refer to Ireland under the British government but rather Ireland under the British crown. In 1910, M.E Knight, county grand master of the Orange Order in Monaghan proclaimed: 'Loyalty to the throne has ever been a strong point in the practice of the Orange institution'.148 Similarly, the programme for a demonstration of southern Unionists organised by the I.U.A. in Dublin the following year concluded:

231 Prizing as we do the advantages we derive from our present Imperial position, and being justly proud of the place which Irishmen have long held amongst those to whom the Empire owes it prosperity and fame, having been always faithful in our allegiance to our sovereigns, and upholders of the constitution, we protest against any change that will deprive us of our birthright, by which we stand on equal ground with our fellow- countrymen of Great Britain, as subjects of our King and as citizens of the British Empire.149 Inevitably, it ended with the sentiment 'GOD SAVE THE KING.' Thus, while Southern landlords realised that land legislation and various political acts were gradually whittling away their position, the union remained preferable to any thing that might follow. It would at least provide a degree of protection. In 1886, an I.L.P.U. pamphlet subtitled The Union vindicated : Ireland's progress, 1782-1800-1886 emphasised the need for its maintenance: So sure as parliament is led by any infatuation to sanction the revival of an Irish parliament in any shape or form, so sure will the scenes of the closing years of the last century be re-enacted. Ireland will again become the theatre of outrage and crime, before which the worst days of the Land League will sink into insignificance. 'Right-boys', the 'Assassins', the 'Tarring and feathering committees', the 'Houghers', the 'Defenders', the 'Revolutionists', will again appear on the stage; they are only waiting till the strong hand of England is withdrawn to issue from their hiding places. And then will come rebellion and civil war.150 The fears and apprehensions of landlords, and Unionists in general, regarding the implementation of Home Rule may have been exaggerated. The quotations above were, after all, published as part of a propaganda campaign aimed at convincing the British electorate and sympathetic British politicians that the maintenance of the union was necessary to protect Unionist interests in Ireland. But given the socio-political climate of the time, landlord fears were perhaps understandable. In a relatively short period of time they had seen their whole world turned upside down. Their economic status had been threatened not only by agricultural depression and land legislation, but also by their own indebtedness. As chapter 13 will show, their social world was also disrupted at various times from the early 1880s. And their political power at both national and local levels had been swept away. To safeguard what they retained they looked to the maintenance o f the union.

233 Chapter 8

The end of landlord representation in Irish politics, 1914-50 Introduction Essentially, the Irish Unionist movement became characterised by two different outlooks. There were the Unionists of the nine county province of Ulster who adhered to the more rigidly defined concept of the union to be forcefully maintained by an armed struggle if necessary. And there were the Unionists of the three southern provinces who because of their different circumstances and their greater sense of isolation were less aggressive. Here, Unionist energy was channelled towards informing the British electorate of their perceived position in a self governing Ireland. Because this thesis deals with landlords who were involved in the southern Unionist movement and the Ulster movement, it is necessary to take a separate look at both. i Landlords and Unionist organisation in Munster, Connaught and Leinster, 1885-1914 In its initial manifesto issued on 16 October 1885, the I.L.P.U. emphasised that it was an organisation: Affording to those Irishmen of all creeds and political opinions, who believe that their country can best prosper as a part of the imperial system, an opportunity of uniting in an organised opposition to the efforts being made by the party led by Mr. Parnell to sever the legislative connection between Ireland and Great Britain.1 The new organisation was to be 'entirely unsectarian in its character'.2 However, the movement became almost exclusively Protestant and dependent on the support of the landed class. It did have the support of individual Protestant clergymen (as opposed to having definite links with Protestant Churches as in Ulster) and academics such as the aforementioned J.H. Jellet and John Pentland Mahaffy both of whom were provosts of T.C.D. in the late nineteenth century. But few from the Protestant business community in the

235 south were willing to become actively involved. Their situation was adequately summarised in 1892 in a letter from Thomas Pirn, a director of Pim and sons, one of the biggest shops in Dublin, to the I.U.A.: 'You should recollect that we businessmen in Dublin live by the Nationalists in country towns and there is no use in abusing them.'3 Even in more northern counties such as Monaghan, Protestant businessmen, dependent on Catholic customers, were careful not to risk injury to their trade by actively involving themselves in the Unionist movement.4 According to its initial manifesto, the operations of the I.L.P.U. were to be confined to the provinces of Munster, Connaught and Leinster. There were some organisational links and personal ties between the I.L.P.U. (and later the I.U.A.) and Ulster Unionism. Lord Famham of Cavan, for example, was a vice- president of the I.U.A. and a member of the Ulster Unionist Council in the early part of the twentieth century. The I.L.P.U. and the I.U.A. gave financial aid to Ulster Unionist registration societies and helped Ulster Unionists with propaganda campaigns.5 However, in 1892-3, at the time of the second Home Rule bill, the Ulster Convention League was established and Ulster Unionists began to work independently of their southern counterparts. This independence became more marked during the devolution crisis of 1904-05 and the subsequent formation of the U.U.C., and was finalised during the third Home Rule crisis 1912-14 with the formation of the Ulster Volunteer Force. The immediate objective of the I.L.P.U. was to contest the general election of that year in the three southern provinces but the extension of the franchise and the redrawing of constituencies meant its fifty-two candidates were, as we have seen, unsuccessful. Here, again, the I.L.P.U. had been dependent predominantly on landlords or their sons to act as candidates. Baron De Robeck contested the North Kildare constituency; the Hon. Charles Bellew contested Kilkenny North; and J.M. Wilson contested Longford North.

236 The results of the 1885 election emphasised to the members of the I.L.P.U. that outside of the University or the Dublin South constituencies they had little hope of winning any seats in Munster, Connaught or Leinster. From then on the work of the organisation and its successor, the I.U.A., was largely propagandist. Thus, in 1886, a meeting of the I.L.P.U. resolved to 'make proper arrangements for the supplying o f accurate information on Irish affairs to Members of Parliament, and others interested'; to organise public meetings throughout Britain at which members of the I.L.P.U. could 'properly represent the conditions of Ireland and the true character of the so called Nationalist movements'; and to endeavour 'to form a sound public opinion by the spread of literature bearing upon the disastrous effect produced by the so called Nationalist agitators upon all trade and commerce in the country'.6 In 1886, the I.L.P.U. bombarded the British public with one million copies of 164 leaflets, 91,000 copies of Notes from Ireland, and 500,000 posters, pamphlets and maps.7 It was one thing to express apprehensions in propagandist pamphlets and petitions; it was quite another thing to form an effective movement that could realistically compete with the Home Rule movement in the three southern provinces. Even at its height in 1913, the I.U.A., which replaced the I.L.P.U. in 1891, boasted no more than around 700 members. However, the contribution of most of the 100 landed families in the sample to the southern Unionist movement was quite significant. The nine founding members of the I.L.P.U. were predominantly landlords. Five of these belonged to the sample group - William Pakenham, fourth Earl Longford of Pakenham hall (Tullynally castle); Henry Bruen of Oak Park; Arthur Mac Murrough Kavanagh of Borris; Bernard Fitzpatrick, second Baron Castletown of Grantstown Abbey; and John Vesey, fourth Viscount De Vesci of Abbeyleix. They were joined by two other landlords, Richard Bagwell of

237 Marlfield in Tipperary and Thomas Butler of Ballinatemple Co. Carlow. J.H. Jellett and Prof. J.P. Mahaffy made up the nine.8 The members from the sample were all substantial landowners who had formerly been prominent in local and national politics or the overseas service of the empire which, along with their cultural ties, had undoubtedly strengthened their loyalty to the union. Pakenham had been a colonel in the 5th Fusiliers, served in the Crimea and during the India mutiny and was under-secretary for war 1866-8. Henry Bruen had been M.P. for Carlow 1857-80, as was Kavanagh 1869-80; he had also represented Wexford 1866-68. Castletown was a retired lieutenant-colonel who had served in South Africa and been M.P. for Portarlington 1880-83. De Vesci had been a lieutenant colonel in the Coldstream guards. Virtually all the landowning families in the sample, particularly the peers, were identified in one way or another with the Unionist cause. By 1886, Percy La Touche of Harristown and Richard De La Poer of Gurteen had joined the I.L.P.U. committee.9 In 1895, the I.U.A. executive committee included the marquis of Waterford and Somerset Maxwell of Famham. 10 Six others were listed as presidents of Unionist clubs throughout the country. The earl of Bandon, for example, was president in Bandon. Lord Castletown held the position in Buttevant, as did the earl of Dartrey in Rockcorry, Co. Monaghan.11 On the 10 October 1911, a demonstration of Unionists of Leinster, Munster and Connaught was held in Dublin in the Rotunda skating rink. The hall, with accommodation for 6,000 people, was reported to have been full, with hundreds of people unable to gain admission. 'The platform was gaily decorated with flags and streamers and the spacious building was lighted with festoons of small electric lamps which were suspended from the pillars.'12 Amongst the landlords from the sample who were seated on the platform were Lords Monck, Waterford, Sligo, Ashtown, Dunsany, Mayo, Rathdonnell, Wicklow, Cloncurry, Famham, De Freyne, Bandon, Langford, Crofton,

238 Bellew. The untitled landlords were represented by George Stewart, J.M. Wilson, Tom Ponsonby and Charles Doyne.13 Lord Clonbrock was unable to attend but he sent his apologies. He wrote: I regret very much that I am unable to attend the meeting as one of the delegates appointed by the county Unionist committee. As chairman of that committee I wish to state there is every reason to believe that there is no falling off in opposition to Home Rule in this part of Ireland [Galway].14 Others from the 100 families unable to attend but who sent apologies included Percy Bernard, the earl of Courtown, Lord Harlech, Lord Desart, E.J. Beaumont-Nesbitt, Henry Bruen and Richard Levinge.15 In 1912, at the height of the third Home Rule crisis, some of the big houses in the sample were being used to hold meetings organised by the I.U.A. These meetings were part of 'a tour' which was basically aimed at demonstrating the existence of Unionism in the south and which had been prompted by the independent stance of the Ulster Unionists. Throughout 1912, Unionist meetings were held in Cork, Waterford, Tralee, Sligo, Limerick and Kilkenny. 'One of the largest meetings' was held in the picture gallery of Kilkenny Castle, attended by Unionists from all the neighbouring counties.16 Notes from Ireland reported that 'a platform draped with Union Jacks was erected at the end of the gallery, and seating accommodation was provided for over a thousand persons'.17 Lord Ormonde presided and other speakers included Lord Midleton, perhaps the most prominent of all southern Unionists, Richard Bagwell and Lords Kenmare and Desart.18 Theoretically, the contribution of landlords from the sample group to southern Unionism seemed impressive. But this apparent rejuvenation of the political role of southern landlords was deceptive. The pyramidal social structure that gave numerical and financial strength to the Ulster movement did not exist further south. At grass roots level, landlords in Munster, Connaught and Leinster failed to exert their former political authority. For one thing, enthusiasts failed to convince all of their fellow landlords that there was a

23 9 future in Unionism. Sir Robert Gregory, for example, refused the invitation of

i Arthur MacMurrough Kavanagh to become involved in the I.L.P.U. His biographer tells us that: Gregory was sceptical of its prospects in electoral contests with the Nationalists, fearing that its candidates might make laughing stocks of themselves, yet stimulate American subscriptions to the National League.19 It was a scepticism that was shared by others and, indeed, often tinged with fear. In 1891, Lionel Pleignier, secretary of the I.U.A. did a tour of the three southern provinces in an attempt to stimulate support for the I.U.A. Pleignier witnessed the difficulties involved in promoting the new organisation amongst landlords. In Co. Louth he found that Lord Roden didn't want his agent to take 'any active part in politics'.20 He concluded that the 'lack of energy' he found amongst landlords was partly 'due to the series of blows they have received' though 'the severity of these has apparently been somewhat due to want of timeous [sic] combination among that class'.21 The following year another I.U.A. organiser wrote from Kerry: There are so few who will take any trouble or do anything unless they are paid for working.... Day by day I get less and less help....Irish people are too pleasure loving and indolent. I think individual action is all you can count upon in Kerry for this work.22 In 1909, S.O. Hannay (Pseudonym George Birmingham) condemned landlords for their lethargy in not doing anything to combat the attack on their position. He wrote: They just watch with peevish irritation the slipping of slate after slate from the roof of their castle of power, the sagging of eave shoots choked long ago, the loosening of rusty hold fasts from their walls. Over their lives there has gathered a nerveless melancholy: A grey mist charged with insidious damp is settling down on them....It is the sense of a hopelessly lost cause which blights them so utterly, that they have not displayed, not once in the last half century, a single flash even of the desperate courage of despair.23

240 In 1912, the secretary of the I.U.A. wrote to Edward Carson's secretary suggesting that Carson should write personally to H.V. Mac Namara of Ennistymon house in Clare 'who has made admirable arrangements for the reception of tours in Ennis....He lives in one of the worst districts in Ireland and has shown the very greatest pluck'.24 The content of this note hints at the problems facing the Unionist cause in the south. Because they were such an isolated minority, southern Unionists, if they became involved in outward displays of loyalty that were anathema to the cause of Nationalism, left themselves open to a threat of hostility. Regarding the 1885 general election, an I.L.P.U. pamphlet regretted that 'very many [Unionists] abstained from taking part in the contest'.25 An agent for an Independent candidate in Leinster thought: 'Many of them...whose social position ought to make them independent in their actions, never voted at all, partly through fear of the unwritten law of the land'.26 This was directly attributable to the terrorism of the Land League days. The same fear was present in 1886 when the I.L.P.U. made a plea for funds to its supporters. While a considerable sum was reportedly subscribed, the subscribers seem to have been less anxious to divulge their identities. The Irish Times reported that each subscriber received a receipt 'with the understanding that neither the name nor amount of his subscription should be made public without the sanction of such'.27 Viscount De Vesci, who was co­ organiser of the venture proclaimed: 'We have been much criticised in our work - for working as it has been said, in secret, and in not divulging names'.28 But this method was perhaps regarded as the only safeguard against possible recrimination. When, some years later, in 1907, the marquis of Waterford made a contribution to the I.U.A. both Dungarvan and Carrick-on-Suir rural district councils passed resolutions 'condemning and stigmatising' his conduct.29 In the same year, Longford U.I.L. passed a resolution condemning Lord Longford for his donation of £500 to the same fund. It called on his tenants to take

241 immediate steps to mark their disapproval of his conduct. J.P. Farrell, the local M.P., said he was ashamed to have his name coupled with Longford's on posters advertising a local show. School children were advised 'to accept no more favours' from Lord Longford or his family as all the speakers declared he 'had no right to devote any portion of his income to such a purpose'.30 In 1912, the I.U.A. secretary claimed that whatever success the Unionist tour had was 'very largely due to the enthusiasm and self-sacrifice of local Unionists in small towns in Ireland....I need hardly say that this action of [sic] their part does not make their lives any easier’.31 Any signs of anti-Nationalist displays by landlords only helped to continue the focus of resentment upon the big house. With regard to the aforementioned Unionist meeting held at Kilkenny Castle, the Freeman's Journal reported: In connection with the arrangements for the meeting an interesting incident occurred. A local firm had lent some barrels for the construction of the platform, but when the matter came officially before the directors of the firm they at once issued an order requiring the barrels to be returned, with the result that the platform had to be dismantled, and erected on another foundation.32 During the same tour, a meeting held in the Theatre Royal in Limerick, organised by the local branch of the I.U.A., was addressed by George Wyndham. Notes from Ireland reported that: A hostile crowd of Nationalists assembled in the street opposite the entrance to the theatre, and jeered at the ticket-holders as they entered the building. The presence of a force of police had a restraining influence on the crowd who offered violence towards those who differed from them in their political opinions. During the progress of the meeting the cheers of the Nationalist crowd outside could be heard. Some ill-advised Nationalists obtained admission to the theatre, and attempted to interrupt the speakers, but they were assisted out of the building by the stewards.33 For such reasons too many landlords held back from outwardly supporting the movement to make it effective. Their demonstrations and displays of loyalty to the union were legal and constitutional and did not hint of

242 threatened force of opposition to Home Rule. Going through police reports for the period from 1880-1914, only one reference was found to suggest that any type of activity comparable to U.V.F. manoeuvres took place in the counties of Leinster, Munster and Connaught. There existed a U.V.F. corps in Co. Leitrim by 1914, but it seems to have been more nominal than active.34 Its very existence may be partly explained by Leitrim's close proximity to Ulster and partly by the fact that the earl of Leitrim whose estates were divided between that county and Donegal was the U.V.F. commander in Donegal. During the 1893 Home Rule crisis, the I.U.A. published a pamphlet outlining its progress. Below is a synopsis of the progress made in the counties outside Ulster.35

COUNTY NUMBER OF BRANCHES AND COMMENT Carlow In addition to the country branch there are seventeen district branches all in working order Clare Only one branch at Ennis Cork Hopefully 20 branches in a short time East Galway Several branches West Galway 4 Central Galway 9 Kerry 1 Kildare 11 Kilkenny 12 King’s I.U.A. has for a long time been well organised in both divisions and good work has been done North Leitrim 1 South Leitrim 10 Louth 9 Longford 11 Mayo 2 Queen’s 12 N. Roscommon 1 S. Roscommon 1 Sligo 17 N. Tipperary 8 S.E. Tipperaiy] Mid Tipperary] Branches being formed Westmeath 17 N. Wexford 9

243 N. Wicklow 11 E. Wicklow 8 Waterford Branches [No further information

The majority of these branches were largely ineffective and inoperative and they were to remain so. The I.U.A. failed to gain a foothold at grassroots level because it was too dependent on the initiative and energy of a limited number of individuals. Patrick Buckland in his Irish Unionism: The Anglo-Irish and the new Ireland, 1885-1922 (1972) calls 1885-1914 the period of'confident opposition' for southern Unionists.36 But as K.T. Hoppen rightly points out: 'While this is a useful corrective to over-threnodic retrospective gloom, it seems, none the less, to mistake the appearance for the substance.'37 The southern Unionist movement made little impact on politics in Ireland between 1885 and 1914. However, having said that, the propagandist campaign of the I.L.P.U. and the I.U.A. should be given at least some credit for thwarting the Home Rule movement at least during the first and second Home Rule crises. This was facilitated by their links with British Unionists many of whom would have objected themselves to Home Rule on imperial and constitutional grounds. In this context it is worth noting, that while Irish landowners failed to win seats in Ireland, some continued during these crises to represent British constituencies. From the sample they included the fifth earl o f Dunraven who was M.P. for South Glamorgan 1895-1906. Charles Beresford who had been M.P. for Waterford 1874-80 continued to sit successively for four separate English constituencies from 1885 to 1916. William second son o f the sixth earl of Fitzwilliam was M.P. for Wicklow 1868-74. Having lost his seat there he continued his political career as M.P. for Yorkshire 1880-85 and Doncaster 1885-92. The seventh earl of Fitzwilliam was M.P. for Wakefield 1895-1902.

2 4 4 ii Landlords and Unionist organisation in the three Ulster counties,

1885-1914. Landlord Unionist activity was somewhat more pronounced in the three Ulster counties under consideration here from 1885 to 1914. In 1901 Protestants as a whole made up more significant proportions of the population ranging from 19 per cent in Cavan to 25 per cent in Monaghan. A significant stage in the growth of Unionism in these counties was the emergence of Orangeism in the 1880s as a potent political force. It was the election of Timothy Healy as M.P. for Monaghan in 1883 and the subsequent so called 'invasion of Ulster' which precipitated this emergence. After the Monaghan election, Nationalists organised meetings throughout southern Ulster, but whenever a Nationalist meeting was called, an Orange counter demonstration was summoned. In October 1883, a Nationalist public meeting was called at Rosslea in Co. Fermanagh. The county grand master of the Monaghan Orangemen, the fifth Baron Rossmore, issued a provocatively worded placard calling on his followers to assemble in their thousands to counteract the effect of the 'rebellious party'. An estimated 7,000 Orangemen and 5,000 Nationalists assembled in the area, separated only by the military and the raging torrent of a river.38 There was only a minor skirmish, but the Rosslea meeting marked an important stage in the emergence of the Orange Order to political leadership in Ulster. Throughout the province its character greatly changed and it was taken up by 'large numbers of men of a solid and superior type and became for the most part a highly respectable and a very powerful political organisation working for the maintenance of the union'.39 Gradually the Ulster Unionist movement became more and more independent of its southern counterpart. In 1886, the Ulster Loyalist Anti Repeal Union was founded. It joined with the Orange Order in a series of demonstrations throughout the province culminating in Lord Randolph Churchill's visit to Belfast where he claimed that the Orange card would be the

245 card to play.40 The second Home Rule crisis of the 1890s witnessed the formation of Unionist clubs throughout the province, a phenomena which did not stretch beyond Ulster. In Co. Monaghan, these clubs were co-ordinated by Lord Templetown. By February 1893 the police were reporting that they were 'established in many areas and are being joined by all classes, gentry, clergy, farmers, traders and labourers'.41 Cavan was reported to have eleven clubs with almost 2,500 members.42 During this period, Cavan landlord, Col. Edward Saunderson, emerged as a dominant figure in the Ulster Unionist party. The second home rule bill was defeated in 1893. For a time, the land question threatened to weaken what was still a relatively unstable alliance of landlords and Protestant farmers. The latter were now being organised under the Ulster Tenant Defence Association led by T.W. Russell.43 By 1901, Russell was addressing meetings, such as the one held in Monaghan town in October, which were largely attended by Protestant farmers. It seemed for a while as if Protestant Unionist forces in the three Ulster counties were to be divided on economic grounds with the Presbyterians, the bulk of whom were small farmers, in opposition to landlords, most of whom were Church of Ireland.44 However, the advancement once again of the Home Rule movement, especially after the devolution crisis, allied to the generous terms of the Wyndham Land Act, alleviated the crisis. In response to the devolution crisis of 1904-05, when Balfour's Unionist government was suspected of fostering a policy of Home Rule by instalments, a meeting of Ulster Unionists in Belfast in December 1904, formed a central Unionist association. In March 1905, it assumed the name of the Ulster Unionist Council. It comprised Unionist M.P.s, all local Unionist associations, Unionist clubs and Orange lodges in Ulster. The U.U.C. was to become the virtual directing power of Ulster Unionism during and after the third Home Rule crisis of the 1910s. At a U.U.C meeting on 25 September 1911, 400 delegates unanimously agreed to appoint a committee to submit a constitution for a provisional

246 government to operate when the third Home Rule bill was passed. In the meantime the U.U.C. planned to stage another elaborate demonstration for the 28 September 1912 in the form of the signing of the Solemn League and Covenant. Landowners throughout the three counties took the initiative in organising the signing of the covenant. Over 5,000 Monaghan men signed it;45 4,600 signed it in Cavan;46 and 'a considerable number of people' signed it in Donegal, later estimated at around 3,000.47 Carson himself acknowledged in 1913 that this number of signatories was a rebuke to those who imagined that Unionism existed only in the four north-eastern counties.48 The subsequent formation of the U.V.F. gave landlords in the three Ulster counties one last opportunity to act as leaders, even if it was only of the Unionist population. The first reports of drilling in Monaghan were in May 1912, when the county inspector reported that the Clones Unionist club was drilling twice a week under the guidance of a pensioner from the Royal Irish Fusiliers.49 On 24 May the Clones club was joined by the Monaghan and Truagh clubs and 200 men marched in fours to the bishop's palace at Clogher. They were under the command of Major Richardson of Poplar Vale near Clones.50 By June 1912, the recently formed Unionist clubs at Newbliss and Castleblaney were likewise drilling without arms.51 The following month the anti-Home Rule movement made steadiest progress in the county. At the end of July there were fourteen clubs with drill and occasional route marches being held in all led by landlords such as Major Richardson or Col. Madden of Hilton.52 By September 1913, there were seventeen clubs in Cavan.53 Again, the local landlords assumed leadership. In May of that year it had been reported that 'the country gentry, many of whom are retired military officers appear to be the head of the movement'.54 They included Lord Famham, Col. Somerset Saunderson, and Captain Pratt from houses in the sample. They were supported by other local landlords such as Major Hamilton and Col. Nugent.55

247 In Donegal, the Protestant population was largely concentrated in the eastern half of the county, and it was really only here that Unionist activity was organised. Progress was initially slow. By January 1913, there was only one club in existence at Raphoe.56 By July there were ten with a total membership of 350.57 However, on 2 October of that year Edward Carson came to Raphoe to address a demonstration after which the county inspector reported 'considerable activity' amongst Unionists, with the result that by the end of the month there were nineteen clubs in the county with a membership of 1,550.58 Here drills were also 'regularly practised...under the instruction in most areas of men who have served in the army or who are still connected with it'. The most notable of these was the earl of Leitrim.59 By May 1914, he was said to be busily 'involved in transportation of arms - a sub target gun belonging to him being transported from Orange hall to Orange hall for instructional purpose'.60 It would be a mistake to assume that landlords were the sole organisers of the U.V.F. in these three counties. But those who aided them were drawn from the professional classes who had traditionally helped landlords in administration of their estates or personal business, or from the clergy who were often drawn from the landed class. Both of these groups had traditionally been associated with landlords and had always been welcomed at social events held in the big houses or on demesnes. Professional men included solicitors such as M.E. Knight, William Martin, George Ross and Herbert McWilliam. There were prominent clergymen such as C.M. Stack, A.W. Me Garvey and W.J. Atkins as well as the Church of Ireland bishop, Dr. Day. Land agents included H.K.K. Leslie and William Matthew.61 The role of the female members of landlord families should also be considered. An Ulster Women's Unionist Council had been formed in 1911, and recruited over 40,000 members within a year.62 On 18 January 1912 in the Ulster hall, the women declared that they would stand by their husbands, brothers and sons in whatever steps they might be forced to take in order to

248 defeat 'the tyranny of Rome'.63 In September of that year 228,991 Ulster women signed a declaration similarly worded to the covenant signed by the men.64 The following year, Lord Famham of Cavan, speaking at Randalstown stated: He believed that when the time came for them to go forth to face the foe their women folk could cheerfully say to them 'go and do your duty, and if necessary sacrifice your lives in order that you may hand down to your children those civil and religious rights which our forefathers have handed down to us.'65 In Donegal 'the ladies connected with the [U.V.F.] corps held ambulance classes' and were said to be 'very much in earnest'.66 In May 1911, at the request of the North Monaghan Unionist Association, the countess of Dartrey, who shared 'the views of her noble husband on this very important and vital matter', formed a Women's Unionist Association for the county.67 Once again landlord families headed its organisation. Lady Dartrey, Lady Gosselin, Miss Murray-Ker, Miss Richardson, Miss Fitzgerald, Miss Fitzgibbon Irwin and Mrs Day, wife of the Church of Ireland bishop of Clogher, were amongst the attendance at a public meeting held under the auspices of the association in Monaghan town in July 1911. They declared that 'the civil and religious liberty of the women of Ireland and the security of their homes can only be guaranteed under the legislative and administrative union of Great Britain and Ireland'.68 Initially, the Women's Unionist Association concentrated on such activities as the holding of concerts to raise money for the Carson defence fund. At the annual meeting of the U.U.C. in January 1913, at which it was decided to formally establish the U.V.F., it was also undertaken to raise an indemnity fund to support any member injured in the execution of duty.69 One concert in aid of this organised by the Women's Unionist Association of Monaghan, realised 'the princely sum' of £130 10s 6d.70 By 1914, more and more of these women were gradually giving up their leisure hours to attend first aid classes. They were becoming aware that if the worst came to the worst, 'their brothers and fathers would require their care through their nursing qualities'.71 Thus in February 1914, Lady Dartrey

249 convened a meeting of the Monaghan association to consider their role in the event of civil war. Miss Murray-Ker of Newbliss promised her house as a hospital, as did Lord Francis Hope of Castleblayney and Lord Dartrey.72 Later in the year, Mrs Murray-Guthrie, sister of Col Leslie, raised 'a considerable' amount of money to equip the hospitals and meet other expenses in connection with the U.V.F.73 Finally, landlords opened their demesnes to facilitate the training of the U.V.F. in manoeuvres, and they allowed arms to be hidden in their houses and outoffices. In March 1912, one of the first demesnes from the sample on which drilling was reported was Castlesaunderson, 'permission having been obtained from 2 magistrates'.74 In April 1913, the local U.V.F. assembled in Dartrey demesne outside Rockcorry in Co. Monaghan.75 The following day there was a review of the first Monaghan battalion in Sir John Leslie's demesne at Glaslough, 'the finely situated home of the commander'.76 The Belfast Newsletter reported: A fairly large crowd of spectators witnessed the operations, amongst those present being Mrs. Leslie, Mrs. Guthrie, Lord and Lady Kerry, Lady Caledon, Mrs. Crowsley, the Venerable Archdeacon Abbott and Miss Abbott....The place chosen for the operations was ideal as timber cutting had been in progress and the fallen trees and hilly ground provided splendid cover for the attacking force. At the conclusion tea was supplied to the men by Col. and Mrs. Leslie who along with the members of the house party present were indefatigable in attending to their wants.77 In December open air drill was again reported on this demesne as well as at Mount Louise, the residence of G.F. Evatt and in Major Richardson's demesne at Poplar Vale.78 In June 1914, at Drumbamett house in Donegal 'about five tons of provisions [were] stored there in preparation for an hospital, or a camp of instruction'.79 By 1914 training camps for the U.V.F. were being held throughout the three counties and the province as a whole. In February the inspector general reported that 'there was evidence that the volunteers are being instructed and

250 trained in the use of arms in drill halls and private grounds to which the police have no access'.80 The following month a camp was set up on Famham estate in Cavan between 7 and 14 March attended by 230 men 'for the purpose of receiving instruction in drill'.81 The difficulties which the police seemingly had in gaining access to these demesnes to report on activities within means there is no official information on what took place in the monthly police reports. Constables Stafford and Me Cabe encountered such difficulties at Baronscourt Co. Tyrone, demesne of the duke of Abercom, where U.V.F. men, including a sizeable number from Co. Donegal, were under instruction. Stafford reported to his superiors that while on duty about a quarter of a mile from Baronscourt: I discovered a number of trenches in a field, also a large number of small bags filled with sand, in front of some of the trenches there were about eight square yards of barbed wire driven into the ground. I also discovered a number of port holes made in the walls of an old house, and in stone ditches near where the trenches are.82 His fellow-constable, McCabe, claimed: I was about to enter Baronscourt demesne on duty in connection with the Ulster volunteers who are at present encamped there when I was stopped by two of the volunteers who told me that I would not be allowed to enter the demesne unless I produced a pass. o - i However, the Northern Standard of Co. Monaghan ran a substantial article on one of the most prominent of these camps held outside Clones, across the Fermanagh border, at Knockballymore demesne, the property of the earl of Erne. This camp was attended by members of the Monaghan and Cavan U.V.F. The big house was used for officers' quarters while the men were billeted in the outhouses of the yard. The first group of men to arrive were from the Feragh Unionist club in Monaghan and their baggage was conveyed to the grounds in the carts of local farmers.84 (The transport committee of the U.V.F. had earlier compiled a register of farmers throughout Ulster who were prepared at short

251 notice to allow the U.V.F. to requisition their carts and wagons and it also made a complete list of the very few motor lorries operating at the time.85) There was a marquee and a canteen for the supply of cigarettes and mineral waters situated in the large farmyard. No alcohol was allowed and the men paid one pound per head for the provisions they ate during the week. Guards were posted all around the grounds to prevent any visitors (or police) from entering.86 The programme of instruction at Knockballymore provided for everything from squad to battalion training. Dummy and up-to-date rifles were supplied. The day began with a volunteer parade followed by instructions on guard duties, methods of pitching circular tents, presentation, training and changing of arms, company and command training.87 It would appear that such drill practice was very beneficial to the volunteers as it was reported after 'extensive operations' at Glaslough demesne two months later that the men 'showed a most remarkable improvement both in military bearing and in appearance'.88 After the Lame gun running the big houses were used to store a high percentage of the arms that reached Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal. In June 1914 the inspector general stated: 'In some cases rifles have been issued to the volunteers individually, but as a rule they seem to have been stored in quantities at the houses of the country gentry'.89 By 1917, the police had succeeded in estimating the extent of arms in U.V.F. possession in Ulster. There were 1,374 rifles in Cavan. Of these 300 were stored at Lord Famham's as well as two maxim guns. There were a further 114 in the home of Major Hamilton and 120 in the homes of other landlords.90 Of 1,784 in Donegal, 70 were kept at Mulroy, 60 at Boyd's of Letterkenny and 315 distributed throughout other landlord homes.91 In Monaghan there were 1,678 rifles. Of the houses in the sample, 150 were kept at Glaslough, 300 at Dartrey, and 125 at

252 Hilton Park. Almost 900 were in the homes of other landlords and large farmers while the remainder were held in small numbers in Orange lodges.92 With the simultaneous growth of the Irish National Volunteers in these counties and throughout the South, it seemed for a while as if Ireland was heading towards civil war. However, the outbreak of World War I averted a potentially explosive situation and landlords directed their energies towards the plight of the empire. Effectively, this ended their last adventure as leaders within their localities. The war years were to bring great socio-political changes, not least of which was the partition crisis. iii World War I and the weakening of Unionist sentiment Although the contribution of World War I to the socio-economic decline of the big house raises some questions 93, there is little denying the contribution of landlords and their families to the war effort both at the front and at home. In total 146 members of the sample families served in the war. Forty-one of these were killed. In the long term, and from a political point of view, this loss of unrealised potential and the overall concentration by landlords on the war effort was, as we shall later, significant. Because of the war effort Unionist organisation suffered greatly, both in the three Ulster counties and further south. Recruitment drives replaced Unionist demonstrations. Lord Dartrey, Col. John Leslie, Col. Lucas- Scudamore, Major Saunderson, the earl of Bandon, Lord Castletown and the earl of Fingall were all at one time or another to be found on recruiting platforms. As early as August 1914, the Cavan county inspector reported that local landlords were ready 'to commence tomorrow recruiting for the army from the Ulster Volunteers in the county'.94 It was said of Major Richardson that 'he never spares himself when hard work is to be done in the interest of the Ulster Division'.95

253 In the three southern provinces, the I.U.A. virtually ceased political activities in order to concentrate on the war effort.96 Significantly, the I.U.A. did not seriously oppose the third passage of the 1912 Home Rule bill (in 1914).97 Buckland points out that the executive committee continued to meet 'but no longer engaged in political controversy'.98 The most active of Southern Unionist leaders such as Lord Midleton claimed that 'it would be indecent of us to enter upon a domestic controversy when our whole energy should be devoted to the furtherance of the war'.99 At a local level Unionist organisation broke down completely. In his tour of the country, J.M. Wilson of Currygrane recorded this demise in organisation and even in sentiment. In January 1916, a large landowner in Co. Clare told him there had been no Unionist meetings since the outbreak of war.100 In Sligo he was informed that the Unionist movement was 'absolutely dormant since the war started; doubt if it could ever be galvanised into life again'.101 In Tipperary three informants relayed the same information to him - 'Nothing doing'; 'very weak here. They [Unionists] are lying low....Everybody is quiet and everyone who used to support the cause has gone to the front'.102 In Waterford, Unionism was described as 'a negligible quantity. The committee hardly exists. Every Unionist has gone to War'.103 On 20 September 1914, at Woodenbridge in Co. Wicklow, John Redmond pledged the National Volunteers to support the war effort wherever needed, to go "Wherever the firing extends, in defence of right, freedom and religion, in the war".104 While Redmond's speech was to lead directly to a split between moderate and advanced nationalists in the Volunteer ranks, it also led to a new conciliatory stance by the I.U.A. On the 4 August the executive committee resolved that: We the executive committee of the Irish Unionist Alliance hereby welcome the patriotic spirit which has actuated Sir Edward Carson and Mr. John Redmond in this crisis in our country's history, and we call on all Unionists in Ireland in the Imperial

254 spirit which they have always shown, to co-operate with their fellow countrymen in the defence of Ireland and the Empire.105 It is in the decline of Unionism that the enlistment of 146 members of the sample families is perhaps most significant.106 Although about three quarters of them returned, their permanent or even temporary loss to the Unionist organisation during the intervening years was important. Many of these such as the fifth earl of Longford, Richard Levinge, Bryan Cooper, Edward Stafford-King-Harman, Geoffrey Taylour and Richard Hely- Hutchinson had been guiding forces in its organisational structure at both national and local levels. For at least the duration of the war these men were lost to the Unionist movement. Some like Longford, a vice-president of the I.U.A., were lost to it permanently. Landlords who had been previously so active in the I.U.A. forgot about the so called 'domestic controversy'. The earl of Fingall even joined the Irish National Volunteers after Redmond's declaration of support for the war effort in the hope that that body would provide manpower for the armed forces at the front.107 So did Bryan Cooper of Markree. In August 1914 he wrote to the editor of the Irish Times: Our response to Mr. Redmond's magnificent speech must be an immediate one. I am this day joining the National Volunteers, and I urge every Unionist who is physically fit, to do the same, and show the world that Irishmen can forget their quarrels and stand united against a common danger.108 Cooper had been an active member of the I.U.A. and one of the last representatives from the 100 houses to sit as a Unionist M.P. in the South. For him this was a major departure and signalled what could be termed a change of heart. And Fingall and Cooper were not alone in this respect. In the days following Redmond's Woodenbridge speech, at least twenty-three of the 100 sample landlords wrote to various national newspapers expressing their desire to become associated with the National Volunteers.109 The marquis of Sligo was 'ready to join in helping forward the movement'. He contended that to be of

255 real national use the government had to sanction and authorise the National Volunteers north and south to 'ensure uniformity, both of principle and of detail'.110 The earl of Mayo was willing to forget about domestic differences. He wrote to the editor of the Irish Times: In this the hour of national danger all Irishmen must sink their political opinions and join together in the defence of the Empire and their country. I, for one, will gladly help in the equipment and maintenance of the volunteer movement in the South of Ireland.111 Lords Castletown, Powerscourt, and Conyngham expressed similar sentiments in their letters.112 Lord Headfort 'proposed forthwith to join a corps'.113 So did Lords Langford and Desart.113 Lord Stopford at a meeting of Wexford county council claimed that 'he spoke on behalf of the Unionists of the county when he said they all appreciated Mr. Redmond's speech'.114 Sir Algernon Coote of Ballyfin and the duke of Leinster allowed the National Volunteers to drill in their demesnes.116 In Cork, Lord Bandon, who had been president of the Cork Unionist Association, became patron of the Cork Volunteers along with the Nationalist mayor of the city.117 There was hope in some letters that the war crisis might somehow lead to conciliation amongst the divided parties in Ireland at a later stage. Sir John Keane referred to the 'better feeling' that had developed since Redmond's speech. He wrote: I appeal to all classes and denominations to pull together at this juncture, without prejudice to their political opinions, and we may then find in the future, when the crisis is over, that our political differences are not so acute as they appeared in the past.118 At the front itself there was a greater degree of bonding between the classes and religions than previously. In 1915, Lord Powerscourt, referring to the camaraderie in the 10th (Irish) division told a reporter of the Freeman's Journal: 'If we could only come together in Ireland what a country we would make of it'.119 Bryan Cooper, writing in 1918, suggested that his war experience

256 had a profound effect on the way he perceived other Irishmen who did not share his political ideology. He described his experiences at the front as follows: The bond of common service and common sacrifice proved so strong and enduring that Catholic and Protestant, Unionist and Nationalist, lived and fought and died side by side like brothers. Little was spoken concerning the points on which we differed and once we had tacitly agreed to let the past be buried we found thousands of points on which we agreed. To an Englishman that no doubt seems natural, for beneath all superficial disagreements the English do possess a nature in common and look on things from the same point of view, but in Ireland up to the present things have been very different.120 As his biographer, Lennox Robinson, points out Cooper was a much changed man when he returned to Ireland. He was prepared to look for a settlement based on Home Rule and even to consider adopting the ideals of Sinn Feinism. He no longer was the hardliner throwing 'on the counter every used coin of Unionism'.121 iv The Irish Convention 1917-18 and partition The conciliatory attitude of Southern Unionists was brought with them to the Irish Convention of 1917. By then, the political scene in Ireland was in a state of chaos. Redmond's Home Rule party was losing its grip on the electorate and its public credibility. Instead Nationalists looked increasingly towards Sinn Fein. The 1916 rebellion, the failure of Redmond's party to settle the Home Rule question, and controversies such as the threatened extension of conscription to Ireland had led to this swing. In February 1917 the inspector general had noted: Most people support the I.P.P. but their confidence has been severely disheartened by recent events in connection with the prospects of the Home Rule Act, and there is reason to believe that large numbers of them, especially the young men, including a considerable section of the Roman Catholic curates, are now in favour of the policy of Sinn Fein believing that constitutional agitation has failed.122 Sinn Fein's proposed policy of abstentionism may have been a gamble, but it offered an alternative to ineffective constitutionalism. With this growing political scenario, Lloyd George, the British prime minister, considered the option of offering Home Rule but with the exclusion of the six counties for a period of five years after which time their permanent position would be reconsidered.123 On 21 May 1917, Lloyd George announced in the House of Commons that a convention was to be set up. Representatives were to be taken from 'all leading interests, classes, creeds, and phases of thought in Ireland'.124 Sinn Fein was offered five places, the same number as the Home Rule party, but as a logical consequence of its abstentionist policy, it turned them down. The Irish Convention met for the first time in July 1917 in an attempt to come to an agreement on a new constitution. Its members discussed the powers and composition of an Irish parliament, partition, and who should control taxation, foreign trade and customs and excise. Sub-committees were set up to examine electoral law, defence and police and land purchase.125 Here for the first time the southern Unionist willingness to reach a favourable compromise with Nationalist Ireland became clear. R.B. Me Dowell argues that they showed 'the self confidence bred by generations of governing'.126 Writing a couple of years after the convention, Stephen Gwynn claimed: The southern Unionists were the old landowning and professional class, friendly in all ways of intercourse, but politically severed and sundered from the mass of the population. Now they came forward with an offer to help in attaining our desire - quite frankly, against their own declared conviction that the Union was the best plan, but with an equally frank recognition that the majority was the majority and was honest in its intent.127 The real significance of their stance at the convention was that as a representative southern Unionist body they showed for the first time they were prepared to accept a form of Home Rule.128

258 In contrast, the Ulster Unionists revealed their pro-partition hand. M.E. Knight of Monaghan was selected as the special representative of the three counties.129 According to Knight himself, he never missed a single sitting and he did all in his power to see that nothing was done to involve Monaghan, Cavan, and Donegal in separate treatment from the rest of the province.130 However, negotiations of 1916 had already secured the pro-partitionists' position. In that year, Lloyd George, then minister of munitions, was determined to exact a settlement in order to appease American public opinion which had become largely unsympathetic towards Britain in the aftermath of the rising. Without reference to the cabinet, Lloyd George proposed the immediate implementation of the 1914 Home Rule Act plus the exclusion of the six north-eastern counties. He misled Carson into believing that the cabinet supported these proposals as a means to furthering the war effort.131 Consequently, Carson laid the proposals before the U.U.C. on 6 June 1916 and strongly urged their acceptance. At the next U.U.C. meeting on the 12 June, the delegates of the three counties issued a statement that if the U.U.C. considered the safety of the empire depended on the continuance of the negotiations proposed by the government, they would accept this.132 The U.U.C. gratefully acknowledged their decision and proposed that Carson continue talks on the basis of the six county split.133 To appease the delegates of Cavan, Donegal and Monaghan, the U.U.C. resolved that in the event of a settlement being thus arrived at, it would use all its influence, powers and resources for the protection of Unionists in those counties against 'injustice or aggression at the hands of an Irish parliament or government'.134 Many landlords who had come to prominence in the Unionist movement in the three counties were sceptical of this decision. Four years later, Major Gerald Madden at a Unionist meeting in Monaghan referred to the 'grave mistake' that had been made by placing the future of the three counties in the

259 hands of the U.U.C. which 'without a vote and without hesitation' accepted the government's offer to partition the province.133 A leading Cavan delegate, Major Somerset Saunderson, was much more critical of the U.U.C.'s decision especially when it was discovered that the Unionist ministers in the cabinet had not in fact sanctioned Lloyd George's proposals. Saunderson had left the 12 June meeting 'with a feeling of dismay and a sense of betrayal'.136 On his return to London he made enquiries and found out that Lloyd George's proposals had never been before the cabinet. He wrote to Carson to discontinue negotiations, but although Saunderson's suspicions were confirmed by Lords Lansdowne and Selbome, Carson refused to change his mind.137 Saunderson argued that the decision reached by the U.U.C. on 12 June had been based on misconception and, thus, could not stand. Playing on emotions, he said that he refused to believe that the U.U.C. members would allow their names to be handed down to future generations as men, who to make a bargain in their own favour, were willing to throw all their pledges to the wind and 'give assent to the betrayal of a sacred trust'.138 In an effort to further his case, Saunderson wrote to William Martin, secretary of the North Monaghan Unionist Association, calling on that body to support his argument about the invalidity of the decision reached. The Monaghan leaders, however, refused to change their position and instead communicated a resolution to the U.U.C. in July stating that their confidence in Carson remained unabated.139 Carson welcomed their loyalty, admitting that 'no one has suffered more than I have from the knowledge that it was impossible to include the three counties'.140 Furthermore, Carson described Saunderson's letter as 'a tissue of misapprehension from beginning to end' and said he resented the attempt to create the impression that he had been deceived or that the U.U.C. had been misled in coming to its decision.141 As Carson and the other Ulster Unionist leaders were now on the brink of securing terms to

260 safeguard their rights and liberties, any support of Saunderson's allegations would be ruinous to their objectives. Lloyd George's proposals were never implemented. However, the U.U.C. had now decided upon the area to be eventually excluded. Therefore, any sense of renewed confidence amongst the leaders in the three counties that their position would be the same as it was prior to the June 1916 meeting was to be short-lived. The consequence of their mistake became all too apparent with the intransigence of the Ulster Unionists at the Irish Convention. They continued to cling to the partition o f the six counties. Someone like James Craig had already perceived the logic and advantage of partition. 'If they could not save the whole country for the empire', he thought, 'they could at least save themselves.'142 The intransigence of the Ulster Unionists was to have greater repercussions for landlord Unionists in the Monaghan, Cavan and Donegal. Their ties had traditionally been with the Ulster movement. They expected their loyalty and energy during the third Home Rule crisis to be rewarded with an Ulster stand on a provincial cut rather than a six county cut.143 Because it had been stronger, the decline in Unionist sentiment in the three Ulster counties during the war years had been even more perceptible than further South. As early as September 1914 it was reported from Monaghan that drilling was not as active in Unionist clubs as it had been.144 A year later both the Unionist clubs and the U.V.F. had become 'totally inactive'.145 By 1920, there was only one Unionist club in Monaghan with a mere thirty members.146 The same was true in Cavan and Donegal. In August 1914, the Donegal county inspector reported: 'Drill instructors dried up - drilling has not been carried on with much enthusiasm by either party as a consequence.'147 In September, he noted: 'U.V.F. drilling has fallen off considerably chiefly owing to the fact that their instructors have gone to the front.'148 By May 1915, all drilling had ceased.149 In January 1917, the U.V.F. were described as 'inactive

261 and nominal'.150 Likewise in Cavan, in November 1914, there were sixteen U.V.F. drills but they were attended by a total of only 187 men.151 Thus, by 1918, Unionist organisation had all but collapsed in Monaghan, Cavan and Donegal. The machinery was no longer there to fight partition. By the government of Ireland bill introduced into the Commons in February 1920 the government proposed to set up two Irish parliaments, one for the six counties o f north-east Ulster, to be styled Northern Ireland, and one for the other twenty-six counties. To Charles Craig, brother of James, this bill gave the Ulster Unionists 'practically everything that they had fought for, and everything that they had raised the volunteers for in 1913 and 1914'.152 With this in mind the U.U.C. in a series of meetings at the beginning of March decided not to oppose the bill on the grounds that the new state would contain a safe Unionist majority. On Wednesday, 10 March 1920, a meeting of the U.U.C. was convened with Edward Carson presiding. Lord Famham of Cavan moved and M.E. Knight of Monaghan seconded the following motion: That this council abiding by its Covenant refuses to accept any form of government which does not include the whole geographical province of Ulster and calls upon its parliamentary leaders to take such steps as may be necessary to see that the term Northern Ireland in the permanent bill is altered to include the whole province of Ulster. 153 The resolution was rejected. Instead the U.U.C. decreed that as the new bill recognised the rights of the six counties to separate treatment and as such was a preferable alternative to the bill of 1914 they should assume no responsibility for defeating it.154 The Unionist leaders in the other three counties did not see it this way. Three years before J.M. Wilson had sensed a strong 'feeling of desertion of the loyal causes in Donegal by the proposed partition of the six counties' and learned that 'to many of the older Presbyterian people the breaking of the covenant oath was an unforgivable sin'.155 A meeting of the Cavan Unionist

262 Association at the end of March 1920 passed a resolution 'protesting against the breach of the Ulster covenant by the U.U.C. in deserting their fellow covenanters'.’56 In Monaghan the U.U.C.'s decision was condemned as 'a selfish policy' leading Unionists there to now see the covenant as having been little more than ' a mere scrap of paper' that the U.U.C. had brushed aside so as 'not to endanger their precious six county safety'.157 By April 1920 the Monaghan, Cavan and Donegal delegates had resigned from the U.U.C.158 Acute bitterness amongst the landlord class followed. A descendant of Somerset Saunderson's later wrote: Being himself the most punctilious of men, Somerset's feelings may be imagined when he saw his ancestral home and family estates handed over to his bitterest enemies by the country which he and his forebears had served so loyally and so long. 'Now,' said he, 'I have no country'.159 Somerset Saunderson emigrated to England where he died in 1922 never having returned to Ireland.160 His fellow Cavanman on the U.U.C., Lord Famham, wrote in April 1920: Our people look upon themselves as betrayed and deserted....How can we remain members of a body that have plainly told us they don't want us and that we are an encumbrance to them and have...broken a solemn covenant in order to get rid of us. No self respecting man ought to remain a member unless the people themselves repudiate the action of their leaders, and ask us to come back again.161

At the 12 July celebrations in Monaghan in 1920, Col. John Madden denounced the Ulster Unionists for deserting the Unionists of Monaghan. Previously a staunch Carsonite, he now believed that Sir Edward had given to Monaghan Unionists 'the most perfect example of legal quibbling' he had ever seen. During his speech, Madden went on to encourage his fellow Orangemen to owe allegiance to a Dublin parliament should it be established.162 Madden's bitterness increased with time and in July 1921, he again attacked those who had deserted the Unionists of Monaghan, Cavan and Donegal in order to strengthen their own lot. Because it was the Ulster Unionists that had severed 263 the partnership Madden said he never wanted it re-established.163 He advised his fellow Orangemen to find a new partner.

v After independence: The decline of Unionism in the Free State Even before the passing of the Government of Ireland Act in 1920, landlords in the twenty-six counties had been forced to realise that their old Unionist position was obsolete and that they could hope for very little support from their Ulster counter-parts. When Lord Famham wrote to Charles Craig in 1919 proposing a joint committee of Irish Unionists, he received the following reply: With regard to the question of a joint committee we felt that while desiring to work with you to the utmost of our ability in the common cause it would not be possible to have any formal and permanent committee for this purpose. We feel we must have a free hand, and although we realise that our aims are the same as those of the Irish Unionist Alliance, we feel that there are occasions on which the attainment of these aims will be sought along different lines.... This applies to questions of policy, but the same difficulties arise even in the question of propaganda, as we have found in the past, and I might mention, as an instance of this, the difficulty with regard to pamphlets sent out from the Ulster point of view, which sometimes offend the susceptibilities of people coming from the South.164 For southern Unionists, the main contributory factors to post-convention decline were largely outside their control. There was nothing they could do to stem the flow of support towards Sinn Fein who swept the boards at the 1918 general election and then took control of the local governing bodies. The effects of the war years on Unionist organisation became clear during the 1918 general election when only nine Unionist candidates contested seats in the three southern provinces and these were confined to Dublin and Cork city. Only two were successful - Arthur Samuels for Dublin University and Sir Maurice Dockrell for Dublin [Rathmines].165

264 Furthermore the conciliatory attitude adopted by southern Unionists at the Irish Convention led to a split in the I.U.A. Its more forward looking members were gradually coming to accept the obsolescence of Unionism in the twenty-six counties. They formed the Anti Partition League. The A.P.L. members were largely identified with the compromise policy that had emerged at the convention. They approached Home Rule with a sense of inevitability but hoped for long term safeguards for the Protestant minority. The majority of prominent Unionists from the sample became members. In 1921, its executive committee chairmen included Lords Donoughmore, Desart, Bandon, Courtown, Headfort, Mayo, Monck, Rathdonnell, Sligo and Wicklow. Other members included Lords Ormonde and Langford, Count De La Poer, Henry Bruen and John Congreve.166 The more hardline Unionists from the 100 families remained with the old I.U.A. In January 1920, its executive committee had Lord Famham as chairman. Other members included Lords Bellew, Ventry, Cloncurry and Dunalley, E.J. Beaumont-Nesbitt, Percy La Touche, J.M. Wilson, Somerset Saunderson, William Mahon and Charles Doyne.167 The turmoil of the country during the revolutionary period from 1919 to 1923 prevented either body from rejuvenating Unionist politics. The terrorism to which landlords were exposed, which will be dealt with in detail in the next two chapters, made many question the wisdom of remaining in the country let alone the idea of involving themselves openly in a political movement that would expose them to even greater threat from those seeking complete independence from Britain. It was thus more difficult than ever to recruit support at grass roots level. In August 1921, for example, J.W. Garvey of Tulley House in Westport wrote to an Ulster Unionist: Personally I am anxious to see a peace much as I regret any severance from the union. I would have preferred to see the union cemented rather than dismembered but the union is now a thing of the past. We have our all in the west and our only chance of saving anything we have is by silence in the midst of this great revolutionary change.... Any aggressive word or act would be 265 fatal to us now and our chances of security and safety are not very hopeful.168 In 1922, another landowner wrote from Donegal: To continue a member of a Unionist alliance while desiring to be loyal to the Free State would place me in the invidious position of'running with the hare and hunting with the hounds1.169 Furthermore, the disillusionment which some landowners felt with the degree of protection that the British government offered diluted their Unionism. In June 1921, the month prior to the signing of the Anglo-Irish truce, Lord Dunraven had claimed in the Lords: Outrages and murders are committed, not for any political motives, but purely from personal motives of malice and revenge, hate and spite. There is in Ireland today absolutely no protection whatever for life or property. Honest, decent citizens have no protection, and can get no protection from the police and are not allowed to protect themselves.170 Following the truce, Unionists at grass roots level in Cork, the county worst affected by terrorism, were of the opinion 'that it would have been better to suffer a few months longer until the I.R.A. was brought to its knees and forced to sue for terms instead of being asked to consider terms on grounds of equality'.171 Lady Alice Howard wrote in her diary in November 1921: 'The government here have given over everything to the rebels and they are to govern Ireland entirely. Too dreadful - with only a nominal oath of allegiance to the king.'172 A month later she recorded: 'such a dreadful year of rebellion and murder - and now England has cast us off and given us to the murderers'.173 While disillusionment with the British government, the continuation of hostilities during the civil war, and the realisation that the new Free State government was now their best hope of protection, forced the likes of Lords Powerscourt and Ashtown to make representations to Dublin, others left Ireland altogether.174 Again this was a major contributory factor not only to the demise of Unionism in the South but to the decline of the big house as well. Some had

266 no desire to return home again. In a letter to The Times in March 1922, Lord Bandon recovering in England from a kidnapping ordeal175 wrote: In the areas where these outrages were most frequent and most cruel no protection was afforded to human life, and many of the exiles would not dare run the risk of placing themselves again in the power of criminals who desire to injure them.176 Around July 1922, Lord Dunalley left Kilboy because of incessant raids on it.177 Lord Desart was living in England a long time before his home was reduced to ruins in February 1923.178 After its burning he felt 'that the end of his life in Ireland had arrived'.179 He later wrote of his hurt: 'The wound is deep and there is no cure for it.'180 Years later he wrote to his granddaughter: 'I can't bear to think of Desart -it is sadness itself. All gone, all scattered and we were so happy there.'181 Desart was not able to return to Ireland. Instead he and his wife bought a 'little country place' in Sussex.182 But the hurt of exile remained with him. One day his daughter observed him in his small rock garden in his Sussex home. She later wrote: I knew he was thinking of Desart, of the long borders in the kitchen-garden and the great flowering terrace in the sunset. He could not easily become attached to a garden-plot in Sussex.183 The earl of Dunraven's health failed him in February 1923. He left for Ceylon to recuperate and spent a considerable amount of time there.184 In November of the previous year, the marquis and marchioness of Sligo, who had also been residing in London, left on a world tour. Their eldest son, Lord Altamont, went to India.185 Lord Headfort was also staying in London, while his eldest son and heir emigrated to America to start up a business.186 J.M. Wilson, one o f the most active southern Unionists also sought refuge in England. Shortly after his house had been burned in 1922, Edward Carson informed the House of Lords: The brother of that gallant soldier [Field Marshal Sir Henry] is now living in humble lodgings in an English village, shattered in health and broken in spirit. I saw him lately, and I assure you it

267 was hard to bear - the wreckage which all this has brought about.187 Having heard of Carson's speech, Wilson wrote to him: A thousand thanks for your great speech, from a poor Irish refugee, who is nearly heartbroken at the duplicity, mendacity, & cowardice of our former friends. God help those of us belonging to the south or west.188 E.J. Beaumont-Nesbitt had also been an active Unionist, and vice-president of the I.U.A. as late as 1919-20. He was forced to leave his estate at Tubberdaly in King's County because of intimidation and his home was later burned. Some time later, in 1925, he wrote to a friend that he had had 'his innings' in Ireland but was glad to be out of it 'in the face of all the opposition'. He did not wish to return.189 The loss o f such activists seriously continued to weaken Unionist organisation in the twenty-six counties under study. Those who remained to see the establishment of the Free State increasingly accepted their new position and in their capacity as deputy lieutenants or officers of local Unionist clubs sought to make peace with the new administration. The resolutions which they passed are significant for two reasons. Firstly, those quoted below were usually instigated by members of the sample families who had been supporters of the union but who were now willing to accept some form of Home Rule. Secondly, they reflect the mood at grass roots level of the Unionist organisation as distinct from the executive committee of the A.P.L. or I.U.A. The bodies which passed them formed a more widespread representation of former landlords than its national organisations. In August 1920, Sir Henry Bellingham, lieutenant of Co. Louth, wrote to the British prime minister condemning the government's policy of martial law: Coercion and martial law in any form...will make bad worse, and will only widen the breach and stimulate the race hatreds and distrust which divide the British or Irish nations so unhappily at present.190 He suggested dominion Home Rule as the solution:

268 It would attract to its support the vast bulk of the population which primarily craves for peace and goodwill, but which is obliged to sit still and to suffer because of the unyielding and wholly distrustful Irish policy of the Government.191 In the same month, at a meeting of the deputy lieutenants and magistrates in Queen's County, Sir Algernon Coote and Viscount De Vesci also called for dominion Home Rule. Col. Cosby of Stradbally Hall had been a deputy lieutenant for fifty years. At the same meeting, applause greeted his change of heart: 'I am an old Unionist - as you know a life long Unionist - and now I have to pocket my feelings and to do what I can for the good and benefit of my beloved country.'192 The following month a meeting of Cork deputy lieutenants, chaired by Lord Bandon, passed a resolution complaining that 'in recent years the British government has failed to secure the observance of law and has lost the confidence of all classes'.193 Later that month a meeting of Wexford J.P.s was convened by Lord Courtown of Castleboro. He told those present that 'he thought it would be well to pass a resolution calling on the government to do something to meet the desire of the majority of the Irish people giving them control over all local affairs including taxation'.194 In October, a gathering of Mayo magistrates expressed their lack of confidence in the British government, deplored the state of anarchy and resolved that law and order could be restored 'by an Irish parliament having complete authority'.195 Similar resolutions were passed throughout the twenty-six counties during 1920 by landlord dominated bodies. Those quoted above are merely examples. They reflect that by 1920 Unionism was no longer regarded either as an acceptable or practicable political ideology. It was, however, not something which had happened over night. The Irish Convention had shown that landlords and Unionists of the South were contemplating an acceptable form of Home Rule even before the outbreak of the war of independence. Regardless of the fact that landlord bodies would still prefer a form of dominion Home Rule, the

269 resolutions showed that Dublin rule was more acceptable than at any other time in the past. They also emphasised landlords' desire for peace. When the Free State was established, southern Unionists continued to offer their support. In January 1922, a 'largely attended meeting' of Clare Unionists gave their support to the new Free State government stating in a resolution that: 'It will also be our most sincere wish to strengthen the hands of the new administration and to assist them in the discharge of the arduous duties they have undertaken.'196 In the same month, a division even appeared in the A.P.L. Lord Mayo wrote to the editor of the Irish Times suggesting that it was time for the southern Unionists to come together to reassure the provisional government of their 'desire to co-operate with our fellow country men... in order that peace may be brought about and the welfare of this community secured'.197 The secretary of the A.P.L. wrote to Mayo saying that such a meeting would be unwise.198 But Mayo went ahead and chaired the meeting held in Dublin. He was joined by a significant number of peers from the sample group including Powerscourt, Headfort, Dunraven and Cloncurry. At it Mayo said he did not wish to 'run counter to his old friend', Lord Midleton, leader of the A.P.L., but 'those present could no longer call themselves Unionists any longer....The country gentlemen wished to live in peace in their homes in Ireland and also to carry on their business'.199 Lords Dunsany and Kenmare and Henry Bruen gave their 'cordial approval' to Mayo's sentiments. Lord Courtown emphasised they 'should do all they could to make the new government a success'. Hercules Langrishe wrote to Mayo approving of the meeting being unable to attend himself.200 The dwindling support for the old Unionist ideology and the irreversible political developments that had resulted in the establishment of the Free State consequently resulted in the winding up of the two Unionist organisations in the Free State. By 1922, the I.U.A. had been disbanded. In February of the

270 following year the A.P.L. disbanded also as legislative sanction had been given to both Southern and Northern Ireland governments.201 Its raison d’etre was gone. A Unionist party was not to re-emerge in the twenty-six counties. vi Landlord political representation in the Free State At local level, the 100 families still held titles such as lieutenant of the county, deputy lieutenant and high sheriff (see table 8.1). Peers still held posts of lieutenants and custos rotulorum in fourteen counties. These included Lord Rathdonnell in Carlow, Lord Bandon in Cork, the marquis of Ormonde in Kilkenny, Lord Dunraven in Limerick and the marquis of Sligo in Mayo. Fifty- seven were still deputy lieutenants and sixty-nine were justices of the peace in various counties. But these posts had become honorific and obsolete. Of more significance was the fact that by now the Sinn Fein dominated local councils were at pains to emphasise that the old regime had passed and that there was neither place for obsolete offices nor for landlords who had traditionally filled them. In the early 1920s the post of high sheriff attracted much attention emphasising this trend. Before the first meeting of the new Dublin county council in January 1920, it was said to be 'a matter of controversy' as to whether or not it would recognise the office of the shrievalty.202 The lord mayor, Alderman O' Neill said 'he would not touch the position with a forty foot pole'.203 In the same month the Sinn Fein members of the Cork corporation decided to elect a high sheriff for the city. Whereas in the old days the landlord dominated grand juries had the power to select nominees, under the 1920 Government of Ireland Act the right now lay with county and city councils. The tradition of sending three names to the lord lieutenant remained and it was generally accepted that the first named would be sanctioned. The other two would get their turn at a later stage. The three men nominated by the Cork corporation were Alderman Fred Murray and Messrs. Dennis Me Neilus and

271 Andrew Ahem. Murray topped the list.204 But he was in jail at the time on charges of having shot and wounded an R.I.C. officer the previous May.205 It was pointed out at the time that if he was elected Murray would have the summoning of "a special jury" to try himself!206 In Limerick 'no action' was taken on the matter of appointment of high sheriff in 1920 as the council refused to discuss the matter.207 As the war of independence and later the civil war gained momentum nationwide the shrievalty in the twenty-six counties fell into 'a state almost of dissolution'.208 By January of 1923 the Irish Times was admitting that the functions of the sheriff were obsolete anyway.209 Nobody seemed to be even aware of who held the positions that year. Eventually a list unearthed by a correspondent of that paper disclosed their identities. They included only two family members from the case study - Patrick Dorman-Smith of Bellamont Forest in Cavan and Hon. Richard Westenra in Monaghan.210 Similarly, right through the 1920s Thom's directory continued to list names of those who had once been justices of the peace. Again, it was almost like a nostalgic throw back to the old days when the big house families could hope to be well represented amongst their ranks. In 1923, the District Justices (Temporary Provisions) Act of that year had taken away their judicial functions.211 Section four of the same act made provision for the appointment of new peace commissioners. In 1925, only one member of the 100 sample families held this position - Sir Edward Bellingham of Castle Bellingham in Co. Louth. Except for the likes of Col. George O' Callaghan Westropp in Clare and Sir Walter Nugent in Westmeath, there were few peace commissioners in the Free State who could be said to be representative of the old landlord class.212 Following on Sinn Fein's landslide in the parliamentary elections in 1918 and the subsequent formation of Dail Eireann, it seemed inevitable that the party would repeat the process at local level in the 1920 elections. And so it

272 was. Sinn Fein captured all the county councils in the twenty-six counties.213 Since their introduction there had been little room for landlords on these councils. And even where they were occasionally elected in counties such as Monaghan, their influence was minimal. Local government had, as national government, become the preserve of a party whose political agenda was anathema to those who continued to desire to remain under the union. There were only four members of the 100 sample families who were county councillors in 1918 (see table 8.1). These were Lord Frederick Fitzgerald in Kildare, Walter Mac Murrough Kavanagh in Carlow, Sir John Keane in Waterford and the earl of Courtown in Wexford. Again, other than these only Lord Castlemaine in Westmeath, Sir Thomas Esmonde in Wexford and Lord Emly could be said to be representative of the old landlord class. Furthermore, only one representative of the 100 houses now held an office on a poor law guardians board. That was E.J. Beaumont-Nesbitt who was vice- chairman of the Edenderry board in King's County. Within a few years he would be forced to leave the country. The granting of independence made it all but inevitable that landlords would not have any significant say in the day to day running of the Free State. None of the 1921 general election seats were contested by Unionists. Dublin University now returned Independents.214 The first representative of the 100 sample families to contest a general election in the Free State was Bryan Cooper, former Unionist M.P., who was returned for Dublin in 1923 as an Independent.215 His biographer claimed that Cooper now wanted to serve Ireland as his 'ancestors had served Ireland in Grattan's Parliament'.216 But he was alone of the members of the 100 families vying for a place in the Dail until Arthur Mac Murrough Kavanagh contested the Carlow-Kilkenny constituency as a Farmer's Party candidate in 1927. His grandfather had held the Carlow seat for many years in the previous century. Despite the fact that Kavanagh polled 3,276 first preferences, he lost the last seat to Denis Gorey of Cumann na

273 nGaedhael who had polled only 954 first preferences.217 Cooper, therefore, continued to be the sole representative of the 100 houses being returned in both the June and September general elections of 1927 and he held the seat until his death in 1930.218 The only political outlet for former landlords was the Senate. The origin of the Senate lay in the old schemes of 1914 and 1920 proposed by the British government to use a second house to dilute the full force of national democracy.219 It had also been resultant on talks between the southern Unionists and Free State politicians such as Griffith and O'Higgins which were aimed at resolving how the interests of the minority could be safeguarded. Article 30 of the act establishing the Senate stated that it was to be composed of citizens who shall be proposed on the grounds that they have done honour to the nation by reason of useful public service and that, because of special qualifications or attainments, they represent important aspects of the nation's life.220 Article 82 laid down special provisions for the constitution of the first Senate. Thirty members, or one half of the house, were to be nominated by the president of the executive council. He was to take into consideration the provision of representation for groups who were not adequately represented in the Dail. Of these thirty, fifteen to be selected by lot, were to hold office for the full term of twelve years. The other fifteen would hold office for six years.221 The remaining thirty senators to complete the first house were elected by the Dail voting on the principles of proportional representation. Article 34 stipulated that vacancies caused by death, resignation etc. would be filled by a vote of the senate itself.222 In subsequent Senate elections the whole country was to form a single electorate area. Voting was by P.R. and the electorate was made up of all those over thirty-five-years-old. Candidates were to be drawn from a panel made up of three times as many qualified persons as there were members to be elected.

274 Two thirds of these were to be nominated by the Dail and the other third by the senate.223 Of the sixty members of the first Senate, eight were peers, four were baronets, one was a knight and eleven others had served as officers in the British army.224 Sixteen out of the thirty nominated by President Cosgrave could be described as having been southern Unionists.225 Seven of them belonged to the sample families. They were the Countess of Desart, widow of the fourth earl, who had done much to promote local industry around her home.226 Lord Dunraven was eighty one years old. He had been lieutenant of Limerick since 1894. He had served in South Africa with the British army and had been A.D.C. to the lord lieutenant of Ireland as far back as 1868. He had also been under-secretary to the colonies, chairman of the Irish Land Conference 1902-03, and a member of the Irish Convention in 19 1 7.227 The earl of Mayo had been a representative peer for Ireland since 1890. Sir John Keane had also served in South Africa and in 1896 had been A.D.C. to the lord lieutenant as well as being a J.P. and deputy lieutenant in Waterford. Lord Headfort had been a lieutenant in the Life Guards and deputy lieutenant for Meath. The earl of Granard had been lord in waiting to King Edward VII, A.D.C. to Lord Cadogan when he was lord lieutenant, and served in World War I and on the Irish Convention. Finally, Col. Maurice Moore joined them as an elected representative. He was brother of George Moore the novelist, and had lived in the ancestral home, Moore Hall in Mayo.228 On the opening of the Senate and the election of a chairman members were at pains to illustrate the goodwill that existed between former parties. Col. Hutcheson Poe, having declared that the senators should be guided in their choice of chairman by the candidates's abilities and position, went on: I would ask everyone to bear in mind that whatever the colour of the political coats these candidates wore nine or ten years ago, that has nothing to do with the question today...

275 Poe asserted that they were 'all Irishmen, united in a determination to loyally support the Free State government and to carry out the constitution' given them.229 John Me Laughlin, supporting the candidature of the eventually successful Lord Glenavy, while rebuking Ulster Unionists' scepticism regarding the usefulness of the Senate, told his listeners: By electing Lord Glenavy we will give them a guarantee of fair play and let them see we are prepared to treat everyman as a brother Irishman, irrespective of what his politics were in the past or his religion is in the present.230 It was, however, clear from the outset that the Senate was not to become a very powerful representative platform from the old landed class' point of view. In the same debate Maurice Moore acknowledged the fact that 'the Seanad has not very much actual power'.231 In fact, the powers of the Senate were greatly restricted as compared with those of second chambers elsewhere. The Dail was given exclusive legislative authority over money bills. While every money bill had to be sent to the Senate for its recommendation, the Senate had to return the money bill to the Dail within twenty-one days and the Dail could accept or reject all or any of the Senate's recommendations.232 The Senate was given a power of suspension of 270 days on other bills received from the Dail. The Senate could amend such bills. However, if it did so in a manner not acceptable to the Dail, or if it rejected or failed to pass any such bill, the bill, after the expiration of nine months from the time it left the Dail, was to be deemed to have been passed by both houses in its original form. Former landlords accomplished very little in the senate. This was partially their own fault. Some showed an obvious apathy towards attending debates. Donal O'Sullivan, a former clerk in the Senate, tells us that from 1922 to 1928: 'The bad attendance of certain senators was a grave scandal, which was the subject of frequent discussion in the Senate.'233 Amongst the worst attenders were a number of former Unionists. In the early stages this may have

276 been partly due to the campaign of terrorism directed towards them by the Anti- Treaty ites. On 30 November 1922, Liam Lynch, De Valera's chief of staff sent orders to all battalions of the Anti-Treatyite forces to commence operations against the 'enemy'. There were fourteen categories of persons who were to be 'shot at sight' including all members of the Provisional government who had voted in favour of the Army Emergency Powers Resolution the previous September.234 This resolution had set up military courts empowered to impose the death penalty. Members of the senate appeared in 'List A'. According to the instructions, their houses were to be burned, as were houses of 'Imperialists (ex D[eputy] L[ieutenant] type)'. From the time that these instructions were issued to the calling of the cease fire in April 1923, senators were subjected to varying degrees of intimidation and outrage. What follows are some examples of the more serious types of outrages directed against senators who were of the landed class. On 9 January 1923, Marlfield in Tipperary, home of John Bagwell, was burned.235 Three weeks later Bagwell was kidnapped while walking with his wife near his Dublin home in Howth. After three days of captivity in a farmhouse on the outskirts of Dublin, Bagwell escaped out through a window while his captors were eating breakfast. After running 'a considerable distance' he obtained a lift to the city centre.236 On 29 January 1923, Palmerston, home of the earl of Mayo, and Kilteragh, home of Horace Plunkett, were burned.237 On 1 February, Moore Hall was burned. It was the home of Col. Maurice Moore.238 Later that month, Mullaboden, home of Sir Bryan Mahon; Cappoquin, home of Sir John Keane; and Desart Court, home of the earl of Desart whose sister-in-law was a senator, were all burned.239 On 26 February, two land mines were placed in Castle Forbes, home of the earl of Granard. One of them failed to explode, but the other caused extensive damage.240

277 On 9 March, an estimated fifty men were involved in the burning of Ballynastragh, home of Sir Thomas Esmonde. He had taken the precaution of earlier removing many of the family heirlooms to the National Museum for safe-keeping. However, many more heirlooms were destroyed. Esmonde claimed the loss meant 'a great deal more than money'. He went on: The house contained autographs and manuscripts belonging to my grandfather and many historical documents dating from 1600.... The library contained some thousands of books including one on the history of Ireland by Lynch which was the only copy in existence.241 Ironically, this book had been rescued from the great fire of London in 1666 years before.242 Poor attendance amongst former Unionists may also be explained by the fact that the earl of Dunraven was very elderly and maybe lacking the vitality for the political arena that he had shown previously. When Sir Thomas Esmonde proposed Dunraven as chairman, he was informed by Sir Nugent Everard that Dunraven was unwell.243 On the other hand Everard also informed the meeting that the earl of Granard would be an unsuitable candidate for the position because he had to go to America.244 Others, like Lord Kerry, lived for the most part in England. Sir William Hutcheson Poe took up residence in England after the attack on his home in December 1922. Although he regularly attended Senate meetings in the early period of its existence, he resigned his seat in 1924.245 Even the competent Mayo got carried away with issues that were not going to further the cause of the former landlord class to any great extent. In 1924, he proposed 'that the Seanad requests the Government to improve the accommodation on Dun Laoghaire pier for passengers crossing from Dun Laoghaire to Holyhead and vice versa'.246 He was unimpressed by the 'Methusalean' carriages on the trains carrying passengers to Dublin, having to put his luggage in a 'hen house' and an old 'ricketty table' that ladies had to use as a seat.247

278 The attitude of the chairman, Lord Glenavy, before the summer recess that year did not augur well for the future. He addressed the meeting as follows: There are nineteen bills for our consideration when we meet tomorrow. Twelve months ago it would have occurred to me that that would mean two days protracted sitting of the senate. But seeing that we have dispatched fifteen bills today in the space of an hour I see no limit to the speed and powers of this house. Therefore I think we will be quite able to dispose of these nineteen bills tomorrow.248 No attempt was made by these senators of the old ruling class to act as an organised party. With the exception of Keane and to a lesser extent Lord Mayo the attendance of former landlords was abysmal. At the same time there seems to have been very little enthusiasm amongst former landlords from the three Ulster counties to become involved. Only Lord Famham sought election in 1925 and he failed to secure a seat. Within a decade the representation of former landlords had all but ended. Mayo died in 1927. The earl of Dunraven had died the previous year. In 1928, Lord Headfort did not seek re-election. By 1932, Everard, Nugent, Hutcheson-Poe, Esmonde and Plunkett had all gone. Granard did not seek re- election in 1934. Sir John Keane failed to be elected that year. Keane had been the most active of all the former landlords and an enthusiastic senator from the beginning. His personality, while gaining respect, did not, however, endear him to his colleagues. Donal O' Sullivan has written of him: Ever since the beginning he had proved himself to be, on the widest variety of subjects, a convincing and well informed parliamentarian. He had originated debates on probably more occasions than any other member of the House, and he was as good a debater as he was a public speaker....His great defect lay in his unwillingness to co-operate with any group or party, and his aloofness was the cause of his defeat.249 By now the usefulness of the senate had been under close scrutiny by Fianna Fail who wished to see it dismantled. Writing in 1958, J.L. McCracken argued that a certain stigma was attached to the senate because of the fact that provision had been made for the establishment of a semi-nominated second

279 house by the Home Rule Act of 1914 and the Government of Ireland Act 1920. Both of these, he claimed, 'were obnoxious in all their parts to the men who had successfully carried through the revolution'.250 Secondly, he claimed that the Dáil members were not enamoured by the way the senate was set up having been the result of an agreement with 'a group which, rightly or wrongly, was regarded as inimical to the national cause'.251 When Fianna Fail came to power in 1932, the senate was no longer dominated by former landlords. Even so, De Valera viewed it as a nuisance to the constitutional changes he had in mind. He regarded it as 'a remnant, a part of the defensive armour of the ascendancy class...in favour of vested interests and privileges'.252 Sean Lemass saw it as 'a bulwark of Imperialism' that 'was always hostile to the interests of Irish Nationalism' and gave 'political power to a certain class that could not get that power if they had to go before the people'.253 In 1934, a memo, from the Department of the Taoiseach claimed that it had 'set itself in opposition to democratic ideals'.254 The memo, cited the holding up of the oath bill from 19 May 1932-3 May 1933, the local government extension of franchise bill from 28 June-27 December 1934, and the local government (Dublin) bill from the 7 June 1933-6 December 1934 as ample evidence of this.255 It concluded that 'the system is an anachronism which has lost its usefulness'.256 It was on these grounds that De Valera introduced a bill to abolish it in 1934. This was fiercely attacked by the chairman of the senate, T.W. Westropp Bennett, who in a memorable speech published as Pro Domo Sua wrote: 'Mr. De Valera is out for uncontrollable power, and this is why he regards the abolition of the Senate as a necessity....No one can doubt that Mr. De Valera's real aim is to establish a dictatorship.'257 Whatever De Valera's real aim, the senate was abolished in May 1936 and so ended the only political safeguard, albeit largely a notional one, that former landlords had received from those who had framed the new Free State

280 constitution. It also ended all political participation of the 100 families from the sample group. The generation which followed showed little or no enthusiasm for Irish political life. The period after the war had witnessed the death of what could perhaps be termed the last generation of Irish landlord politicians, particularly those who had been the mainstay of the anti-Home Rule movement from its inception in the 1880s. And as with the other factors outlined above, this could only have had a debilitating effect on the political contribution of former landlords in the new Free State. Henry Bruen, for example, died in 1912 aged eighty-four. His contribution to landlord politics had been significant. He was M.P. for Carlow 1857-80 as well as holding various local offices. He had also united the two great houses of Oak Park and Castletown by marrying Mary Conolly in 1854. Bernard Fitzpatrick, Lord Castletown, was sixty-five in 1914. While he lived for a number of years afterwards, it could be argued he did not have the same energy to continue the Unionist cause after the war as he had at the height of the Home Rule crisis. Although married he had no son or heir. As he had also become heir to Doneraile Court having married Ursula St. Leger in 1874, this meant these two great families from the study had no direct descendants to continue Lord Castletown's belief in the union. Henry Browne, fifth Marquis of Sligo died in 1913. His successors played no political role in the new state. A descendant wrote of the seventh marquis who had been bom in 1898: He took little interest in the arts or in politics and perhaps he did not miss much. The 1930s in Ireland were curiously stagnant years as though, exhausted by rebellion and civil war, and by the unparalleled literary achievement of the previous half century, the country was content to play safe, safe in politics, safe with a censured literature, safe in industry behind tariff walls.258 This quote encapsulates the perception held by many former landlords of an independent Ireland.

281 Lord Rossmore died in 1921. He had made a significant contribution to the rejuvenation of the Orange Order in South Ulster and helped to mould it into an effective anti-Home Rule movement. In 1922, the Orangemen of Monaghan sent a resolution to the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland in Belfast stating that as they considered the union no longer existed for them, they could not pledge loyalty to it. The resolution ended: 'If Orangeism is to exist at all it must have its own organisation which will not clash with the laws of the Irish Free State'.259 An attempt to form a separate Free State lodge was unsuccessful due to lack of support given to a meeting in Clones in April 1923.260 Monaghan Orangeism continued but was greatly transformed. At the 12 July celebrations in the county in 1924, the speeches of the Orange leaders no longer appealed to passions, there was no longer a note of challenge in every sentence or the allusions to sectarian differences which had characterised speeches in the anti-Home Rule days. Instead the message was that 'the sphere of usefulness' open to Orangemen of the Free State was in working 'for the realisation and universal application of the root principles of the Orange movement, the principle of liberty and equality for all creeds and classes'.261 But it should, of course, be remembered that these Orangemen were in a very different position than a decade previously when they had the U.V.F. at their back and the support of Unionist Ulster. Having been discarded, they were now very much in the minority. And having witnessed the terrorism of the revolutionary period which had just ended, their acquiescence had undoubtedly been hastened.

282 Endnotes, Chapter 1

P P 2 -9

1. Curtis, 'Encumbered wealth', p.337. 2. Desmond Guinness and William Ryan, Irish houses and castles (London, 1971), p.7. 3. De Burgh, Landowners o f Ireland 4. Samuel Clark and J.S. Donnelly, 'The unreaped harvest' in Samuel Clarke and J.S. Donnelly, Irish peasants: Violence and political unrest 1780-1914 (University of Wisconsin, 1983), p.429. 5. L.P. Curtis Jr., The Anglo-Irish predicament' in Twentieth Century Studies, no.4 (Nov. 1970), pp.37-63. 6. Peter Somerville-Large, The Irish country house: A social history (London, 1995). 7. Mark Bence-Jones, Twilight o f the ascendancy (London, 1987). 8. See Bence-Jones, Irish country houses. 9. See, W.E. Vaughan, ’An assessment of the economic performance of Irish landlords, 1851-81’ in F.S.L. Lyons and R.A.J. Hawkins (eds.), Ireland under the union: Varieties o f tension (Oxford, 1980 pp. 173-99^ id., Landlords and tenants. id., ’Agricultural output, rents and wages in Ireland, 1850-80' in L.M. Cullen and F. Furet {eds.),Ireland and France: Towards a comparative study of rural history (Paris, 1980), pp.85-97. 10. L.P. Curtis jnr., 'Encumbered wealth', pp.332-67. 11. Hoppen, Election, politics and society. id., 'Landlords, society and electoral politics in mid-nineteenth century Ireland' in Past and Present, no.75 (May 1977), pp.62-93. id., 'Landownership and power in nineteenth-century Ireland: The decline of an elite' in Ralph Gibson and Martin Blinkhom (eds.), Landownership and power in modern Europe (London, 1991), pp. 164-80. 12. Hopkinson, Green against green, p. 195.

283 Endnotes, Chapter 2

p p 14-19

1. Bence-Jones, Irish country houses, p.vii. 2. ibid., p. 198. 3. ibid., p.155. 4.ibid., p. 170. 5. ibid., p. 168-9. 6. Irish Times 6 May 1922. 7. ibid. 8. ibid. 9. Bence-Jones, Irish country houses, pp.34-5. 10. R.F. Foster, Modern Ireland1600-1972 (London, 1989 ed.), p. 185. 11. Bence-Jones, Irish country houses, p.75. 12. Quoted in Guinness and Ryan, Irish houses and castles, p.6. 13. A.W. Hutton (ed.), Arthur Young's tour in Ireland, vol.i (London, 1892), p.31. 14. Craig, The architecture o f Ireland, p. 180. 15. 12,892 acres were in Co. Sligo, the remainder in Co. Leitrim, ibid. 16. Bence-Jones, Irish country houses, p. 150. 17. Irish Times 1 May 1922. 18. ibid. 19. ibid. 20. Elizabeth Bowen, Bowen’s Court (New York, 1942), p.31. 21. Bence-Jones, Irish country houses, p.46. 22. ibid. 23. Bence-Jones, Irish country houses, p.211. 24. ibid., p.278. 25 .ibid. 26. Neale, Seats o f noblemen and gentlemen, no pagination. 27. ibid. 28. ibid. 29. ibid. 30. Bence-Jones, Irish country houses, p.xviii.

284 p p 20-25 31. ibid., p.202. 32. ibid., p.73. 33. ibid., p.230. 34. Neale, Seats o f noblemen and gentlemen, vol. i, no pagination 35. Quoted in Guinness and Ryan, Irish houses and castles, p. 187. 36. ibid. 37. Bence-Jones, Irish country houses, p.60. 38. ibid. 39. Catalogue of pictures, plates antiquities etc. at Carton, Kilkea castle and 13 Dominick St. Dublin,and 6 Carlton house terrace, London. (Privately published, 1885). {Hereafter cited as Carton catalogue,1885} 40. C.W. Ganly, A tribute to a noble life;In memoriam o f Gerald, Duke of Leinster (Dublin, n.d.), pp.5-6. 41. Carton catalogue, 1885, p.3. 42. Catalogue o f old Irish silver plate sold by trustees o f Carton, 4 Dec. 1902, and Catalogue o f paintings sold by trustees o f Carton estate, 4 Dec. 1902 (P.R.O.N.I., Leinster papers, D3078/2/10/6/2). 43. Catalogue of contents of Charleville mansion to be sold, 31 Oct. 1932 (N.L.I., Monck papers, MS 26969). 44. ibid. 45. Catalogue o f the valuable contents o f Dartrey castle to be sold on 19 april and three following days, 1937. (In author's possession). 46. ibid. 47. ibid., pp. 12-14. 48. ibid., pp. 14-5. 49. Quoted in Lennox Robinson, Bryan Cooper (London, 1931), pp.25-6. 50. George Birmingham, 'A doomed aristocracy' in Westminster Gazette, 23 Jan. 1909. 51. Dartrey catalogue, pp. 19-30. 52. ibid., pp31-2. 53. ibid., p.40. 54. ibid. 55. Neale, Seats o f noblemen and gentlemen, vol. ii, no pagination. 56. ibid. 57. ibid.

285 p p 25-32 58. ibid. 59. ibid. 60. Auction catalogue o f Lyons, Co. Kildare, 23 Oct. 1962. (In private possession) 61. ibid. 62. W.B. Yeats, The autobiography ofW.B. Yeats (London, 1966), pp.389-90. 63. Bence-Jones, Irish country houses, p.xv. 64. Bowen, Bowen’s Court, p.20. 65. ibid.,p.21. 66. ibid. 67. ibid., p.27. 68. ibid., p.26. 69. ibid.,p.25. 70. The servant's practical guide, 1880 (London, 1880), p.2. 71. Pamela Horn, The Rise and fall of the Victorian servant (Dublin, 1975), p. 18. 72. This and the much of the information which follows is based on a study of the household schedule returns of the 1911 census for each of the 100 houses in the case study. 73. Thomson, Woodbrook, p.29. 74. The servant's practical guide, 1880, p.47. 75. See chapter 11, 'Employment opportunities and conditions in the big house, 1879- 1950.’ 76. Elizabeth Countess Fingall, Seventy years young (London, 1937), p.l 13. 77. ibid., p.96. 78. Annie Mac Manus in conversation with the author. 79. Horn, The rise and fall o f the Victorian servant, p.65. 80. Quoted in ibid. 81. Information on demesnes is taken from, A return o f untenanted land in rural districts distinguishing demesnes on which there is a mansion showing 1/ Rural District and Electoral Division 2/ Townland 3/Area in statute acres 4/Valuation poor law 5/ Name o f occupiers in valuation list. H.C. 1906, c, 177. Hereafter cited as Return o f untenanted land, 1906]. 82. ibid. 83. Based on the author's own knowledge of the estate's layout. 84. Peter Me Kenna, The Emetresse (Monaghan, 1991), p. 122.

286 p p 34-40 85. Guinness and Ryan, Irish houses and castles, p. 18. 86. ibid. 87. ibid., p. 18. 88. Edward Malins and the Knight of Glin, Irish gardens: The Irish heritage series 11 (Dublin, 1977), p.23. 89. ibid., p.l. 90. ibid., p.9. 91. ibid., pp.4-9. 92. ibid. 93. Neale, Seats of noblemen and gentlemen, vol.iii 94. ibid. 95. ibid. 96. ibid. 97. ibid. 98. ibid, vol. ii. 99. ibid. 100. ibid. 101. Hutton, Arthur Young's tour, p.31. 102. Quoted in ibid. 103. Quoted in ibid. 104. Neale, Seats o f noblemen and gentlemen, vol.iii 105. Bowen, 'The big house', p.26. 106. Brochure entitled, Kilruddery house and gardens. (In author's possession). 107. This information and the information which follows is again taken from a study of the household schedule returns of the 100 houses and of the houses on the demesne and surrounding area which it was possible to determine belonged to workers on the 100 estates. 108 Signed agreement between T. Burke and W. Blake, 3 May 1861. (N.L.I., Blake papers, MS 27001). 109. Signed agreement between J.Carroll and W. Blake, 13 Feb. 1865. ibid. 110. 'Rules to be observed by the lodgekeeper at Kilkenny castle, May 1913.' (N.L.I., Ormonde papers, MS 24951).

287 p 40-44 111. Shane Leslie, Unpublished autobiographical sketch. (N.L.I., Leslie papers, MS 22884). 112. ibid. 113. See Jones, Graziers and land reform. 114. Return of untenanted land in rural districts, 1906. 115. ibid., p. 112. 116. Return of untenanted land, 1906. 117. Georgiana Bond, 'Family Patchwork' (unpublished MS) (N.L.I., Bond papers, MS 18450). 118. Jones, Graziers and land reform p. 121. 119. ibid., pp. 122-3. 120. ibid., p. 123. 121. Royal Commission on Congestion in Ireland: Appendix to the tenth report, minutes o f evidence taken in Counties Galway and Roscommon 18 September to 4 October 1907 and documents relating thereto. [Cd 4007] H.C., 1908, xlii, p. 167. 122. ibid., pp. 176-7. 123. ibid., p.285. 124. Cowper comm., minutes o f evidence, p.645. 125. Finlay Dun, Landlords and tenants in Ireland (London, 1881), p.25. 126. Diary of Lord Cloncurry, 29 Jan. 1886. (Cloncurry papers, in private possession). 127. ibid., 31 Jan. 1886. 128. J.S. Donnelly jnr., Landlord and tenant in nineteenth century Ireland (Dublin, 1973), p.53. 129. ibid. 130. McKenna, The Emetresse, p. 123. 131. ibid., p. 189. 132. Quoted in ibid., p. 189. 133.Dun, Landlords and tenants in Ireland, p.34. 134. ibid. 135. Farm account book ofDunmore farm, 1886-94. (N.L.I., Ormonde papers, MS 23833). 136. ibid. 137. ibid.

288 p p 44-45 138. ibid. 139. Valuation of probate of home cattle and sheep at Carton, 13 Dec. 1893. (P.R.O.N.I., Leinster papers, D3078/2/10/8). 140. Headfort estate ledgers and accounts, 1898-1903. (N.L.I., Headfort papers, MSS 15241(1-5)). 141. ibid. 142. Clonbrock estate account book, 1880-1900. (N.L.I., Clonbrock papers, MS 19511). 143. ibid.

289 Endnotes, Chapter 3

p p 47-55 1. Edith Somerville and Martin Ross, Irish memories (London and New York, 1925), P-71. 2. L.P. Curtis jnr., 'The Anglo-Irish predicament’ in 20th Century Studies, Nov. 1970, p.40. 3. Jessica Gerard, Country house life: Families and servants, 1815-1914 (Oxford, 1994), p.93. 4. Unpublished memoirs of Sir Shane Leslie. (N.L.I., Leslie papers, MS 22885). [Hereafter cited as Leslie memoirs]. 5. ibid. 6. See diary of Lady Alice Howard, 1874. (N.L.I., Diaries of Lady Alice Howard, MS 3600). 7. In the discussion which follows, the term 'Irish Peer' refers to peers resident in Ireland while the term 'English Peer' refers to those resident in England. 8. Bence-Jones, Twilight o f the ascendancy, p.94. 9. M. G. Moore, An Irish gentleman: George Henry Moore (London, n.d.), p.27. 10. Anita Leslie, The Marlborough house set (New York, 1975), p.30. 11. Proposals for a settlement on the intended marriage of Charles William, Marquis of Kildare, eldest son and heir apparent of the most noble Augustus Frederick, Duke of Leinster, with the Lady Caroline Gower, one of the daughters of the most noble Duke of Sutherland, (n.d., c.1847) (P.R.O.N.I., Leinster papers, D3078/1/3/42) 12. ibid. 13. ibid. 14. ibid. 15. Cost of settlement and deeds executed upon the marriage of Ambrose Congreve with the Hon. Alice Dillon, June 1866. (N.A., Congreve papers, 1079/1/2/8). 16. ibid. 17. Copy of marriage articles between John Congreve and Hon. Louisa Dillon, 9 Oct. 1927. ibid., 1079/1/2/6. 18. ibid. 19. Copy of marriage articles and indentures made between Rev. Gustavus Me Causland, John Congreve and Ellen Congreve, 30 Oct. 1830. ibid., 1079/1/2/7.

290 p p 56-64

20. Dartrey catalogue, pp.46-7. 21. Lord Castletown, Ego: Random records o f sport, service and travel in many lands (London, 1923) pp. 1,5. 22. ibid., p.6 23. ibid., pp.8-10. 24. ibid., p.21. 25. Shane Leslie, Typescript of unpublished autobiography. (N.L.I., Shane Leslie papers, MS 22884). 26. ibid. 27. ibid. 28. Bowen, Bowen’s Court, p.370. 29. Earl of Dunraven, Past times and Pastimes, vol.I, (London, 1922), p.4. 30. ibid. 31. ibid., p.5. 32. ibid., p.9. 33. Gerard, Country house life, pp.84-5. 34. Leslie, Typescript auto. 35. Lord Castletown, Ego, p.l. 36. Marquis of Sligo, Westport house and the Brownes (Mayo,1981), p.62. 37. ibid., p.64. 38. ibid., p.65. 39. David Cannadine, Aspects of aristocracy (Yale, 1994), p.9. 40. ibid., p.22. 41. ibid. 42. Cannadine, Decline o f the British aristocracy, p.265. 43. Quoted in Tweedy, The Dublin Tweedys, pp. 111-12. 44. Quoted in ibid., p.l 13. 45. ibid., p.274. 46. ibid., p.23. 47. Quoted in Donnelly, Land and people o f Cork, p. 178. 48. ibid., p. 179.

291 p . 6 5

49. Report o f Her Majesty's Commission o f Inquiry into the working of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, and the Acts amending the same: Minutes of evidence, part i. [C 2779], HC 1881, xviii, p.481. [Hereafter cited as Bess. Comm., minutes o f evidence] 50. Bess, comm., minutes o f evidence, ii, p.906. 51. ibid., p. 1,297. 52. ibid., p.481. 53. B. Griffin, The Irish police, 1836-1914: A social history '(Unpubld. Dr. Phil, thesis, Loyola University, Chicago, 1990), p.253. 54. Daily Express 4 Dec. 1861. 55. Freeman's Journal 11 Dec. 1888. 56. ibid., 27 Oct. 1858.

292 Endnotes, Chapter 4

p p 67-71

1. Bowen, 'The big house', p.29. 2. ibid. 3. Quoted in Curtis, 'The Anglo-Irish predicament', p.42. 4. C.P. Crane, Memories of a resident magistrate (Edinburgh, 1938), p.214. 5. ibid., p. 108 6. A directory of people to be invited to balls at Kilkenny Castle c. 1880-1912. (N.L.I., Ormonde papers, MS 23552). 7. List of guests to be invited to a house party at Kilkenny Castle, n.d. (1899). Enclosed in ibid. 8. Diary of Lady Alice Howard, 21 Jan. 1874. (N.L.I., Diaries of Lady Alice Howard, MS 3600). 9. ibid., 17-21 Jan. 1874. 10. ibid., Mar. and April 1874. 11. ibid., 29 Mar-5 April 1874. 12. ibid., 5 Sept. 1874. 13. Diary of Lady Crofton, 1852. (N.L.I., Crofton papers, MS 4070). 14. Diary of Lord Cloncurry, 1897. (In private possession). 15. Bowen, Bowen’s Court, p.345. 16. ibid., p.345-6. 17. Diary of visitors to Headfort castle, 1887-92. (N.L.I., Headfort papers, MS 25369). 18. Leinster Express, 10 April 1880. 19. ibid. 20. Quoted in Fingall, Seventy years young, p. 121. 21. Inventory of plate at Headfort, 1866. (N.L.I., Headfort papers, MS 25414). 22. List of plate in Kilkenny castle in Nov. 1839 and Dec. 1848. (N.L.I., Ormonde papers, MS 23809). 23. Mac Manus to the author. 24. ibid. 25. ibid.

293 pp 71-76 26. Shooting card of hunting party at Glenart, 9-12 Nov. 1886, enclosed in diary of Lord Cloncurry for 1886. (In private possession). 27. M. Wills to Mrs. Fawcett, 3 May 1904. Quoted in Journal o f the Butler society, Vol.III, no.ii, (1988-9), pp.202-3. 28. Owen Tweedy, The Dublin Tweedys: The story o f an Irish family, 1650-1882 (London, 1956), p. 110. 29. Newspaper clipping on fancy dress ball at Guinness residence in Dublin, 10 Feb. 1881 in scrapbook compiled by Lady Castletown. (N.L.I., Castletown papers, MS 3079). 30. Tweedy, The Tweedys, p. 107. 31. ibid. 32. Diary of Lady Alice Howard, 2 May 1874. 33. Leslie memoirs. 34. ibid. 35. Leslie memoirs. 36. ibid. 37. ibid. 38. Earl of Mayo and W.B. Boulton, A history o f the Kildare hunt (London, n.d.), p.19. 39. Quoted in ibid., pp. 26-7. 40. Anon, Memoir o f the Kilkenny hunt: Compiled by one o f its members in the year of its centenary, 1897 (Dublin, 1897), p.9. 41. Col. Wyndham Quin, The fox hunt in Co. Limerick (Dublin, 1919), p. 19. 42. Muriel Bowen, Irish hunting (Tralee, n.d.), pp.5, 101, 59. 43. ibid., p. 17. 44. Bowen, Irish hunting, pp. 40, 55, 194. 45. Anon., Memoir o f the Kilkenny hunt, p.9. 46. ibid., p.21. 47. ibid., p.24. 48. ibid., p.56. 49. ibid., p.95. 50. ibid., p.47. 51. ibid., p.72. 52. ibid., p.51. 53. ibid.

294 p p 76-81 54. Quoted in ibid., p. 118. 55. ibid., p.118. 56. ibid., p.53. 57. ibid., pp. 53, 68. 58. Castletown, Ego, p.17. 59. Col. Wyndham Quin, The fox hunt in Co. Limerick (Dublin, 1919), p.55. 60. ibid., p. 162. 61. Quoted in ibid., p. 163. 62. ibid., pp.140-1. 63. Return of owners o f land o f one acre and upwards in Ireland. 64. Wyndham Quin, Fox hunting in Co. Limerick, p.35. 65. Anon, Memoir o f the Kilkenny hunt, p. 14. 66. Quoted in Bowen, Irish hunting, p.84. 67. ibid., p. 115. 68. Desdichado (pseudonym), Fox hunting in Meath: An imperfect record of a hunting season in Meath, 1883-4 (Dublin, 1884), p.35. 69. Wyndham Quin, Fox hunting in Limerick, p.28. 70. Mayo and Boulton, A history o f the Kildare hunt, p.267. 71. ibid., p.270. 72. ibid., p.268. 73. ibid., p.271. 74. ibid., p.338. 75. ibid. 76. Quoted in ibid., p.303. 77. Anon., Memoir of the Kilkenny hunt, p.65. 78. Quoted in Wyndham Quin, The Limerick hunt, p. 110. 79. Col. S.J. Watson, Between the flags: A history o f Irish steeplechasing (Dublin, 1969), p.63. 80. Moore, An Irish gentleman, p.92. 81. F.A. Darcy, Horses, lords and racing men (Kildare, 1991), p. 193. 82. Quoted in ibid., p. 188. 83.1.R.C., 1872, p.36. 84. ibid., p.61. 85. ibid., p.79.

295 p p 81-85

86. ibid., p. 106. 87. ibid., p.54. 88. Mayo and Boulton, The Kildare hunt, pp. 182-3. 89. ibid., p. 186. 90. ibid., pp. 188-9. 91. For a copy of the painting along with a key to Who's Who in it, see Watson, Between the flags, p.90. This painting was in the possession of the earl of Clonmell up to around 1914. However, I have been unable to locate its present whereabouts. Walter Strickland, A dictionary o f Irish artists, vol. 1 (Dublin, 1913), p.464. Information supplied by Mr. Adrian Haravel, curator, National Gallery of Ireland. 92. Watson, Between the flags, p.63. 93. Darcy, Horses, lords and racing men, p.6. 94.1.R.C., 1870, p.xi. 95. ibid., p.cxi. 96. ibid., p.xlv. 97. ibid., p.522. 98. Darcy, Horses, lords and racing men, pp. 48-53. 99. Quoted in ibid., p. 173. 100. Moore, An Irish gentleman, p.7. 101. ibid. 102. ibid., p.82. 103. ibid., p.90. 104. Quoted in ibid., pp. 90-1. 105. ibid., p.95. 106. ibid., 98. 107. ibid., p. 104. 108. ibid., pp.8-9. 109. ibid., p.311. 110. ibid., p.312. 111. I.R.C., 1880, p.53. 112. ibid. 113. Darcy, Horses, lords and racing men, p. 103. 114. ibid., p. 107. 115. ibid., p.107 296 pp 86-91 116. Earl ofDunraven, Past times and pastimes, vol.i, (London, 1922), pp. 168-9. 117. ibid., p. 169. 118. ibid., p. 170. 119. Leslie memoirs. 120. Brooke, Daly's Club and Kildare Street Club, Dublin (Dublin, 1930), p.5. 121. Newspaper clipping, undated and untitled in scrapbook compiled by W. Walsh and titled 'Clubs and taverns of Dublin.' (N.L.I., Walsh papers, MS 11664). [Hereafter, Walsh, 'Clubs and taverns of Dublin'] 122. Brooke, Daly's Club and Kildare Street Club, p.8. 123. Walsh, 'Clubs and taverns of Dublin'. 124. Brooke, Daly's Club and Kildare Street Club, p.6. 125. G.W. Maunsell. 'An historical note on the Kildare Street Club', dated Aug. 1880. (N.L.I., Maunsell papers, MS 4621). 126. ibid. 127. ibid. 128. ibid. 129. Brooke, Daly’s Club and Kildare Street Club, p. 16. 130. This information and that which later pertains to the London clubs was based on a study of Bateman, Great landowners, De Burgh, Landowners o f Ireland and Burke's peerage. 131. Rules o f the Kildare Street Club with a list o f members names, January 1860 (Priv. publd.,Dublin, 1860), p.l. 132. ibid., p.2 133. ibid., pp.3-4. 134. ibid., p.6. 135. Maunsell, 'Kildare Street Club.' 136. Rules o f the Sackville Street Club and a list o f members, 1860 (Priv. publd., Dublin, 1860), pp. 11-2. 137. The County Club, Limerick, A short history of a hundred years of club life (Priv. publd.,Dublin, n.d.), p.40 138. ibid., p.6. 139. ibid., p.8. 140. ibid., p .ll. 141. Leslie memoirs. 142. See p.89.

297 p p 92-95 143. The rules and regulations o f the Junior United Service Club with an alphabetical list of its members (London, 1855), pp. 9-10. 144. ibid., p.15. 145. ibid., p.22. 146. Petrie, The Carlton club, p.44. 147. Quoted in ibid. 148. Quoted in ibid., p.66. 149. Guy Boas, The Garrick Club, 1831-1947 (London, 1948), p. 11. 150. ibid. 151. ibid., pp. 5 and 16. 152. ibid. 153. Co. Limerick Club, A short history, p. 17. 154. ibid., p. 18. 155. ibid. 156. Petrie, The Carlton Club, p.61. 157. ibid. 158. ibid., pp.61-2. 159. Co. Limerick Club, A short history, p.32. 160. ibid., p.32. 161. A list o f rules o f Boodle's Club, 1857 (Dublin, 1857), p. 10. 162. The rules of the Junior United Services Club, p.23. 163. ibid., p.21. 164. Co. Club Limerick, A short history, p.29. 165. ibid., pp.29-30. 166. ibid., p.31. 167. ibid. 168. Petrie, The Carlton club, p.62. 169. Rules o f Boodle's, p.10 and 12. 170. Rules o f United Services Club, p.24.

298 Endnotes, Chapter 5

p p 100-104 1. Vaughan, Landlords and tenants, p.51. 2. ibid., p.48. 3. ibid., p.50. 4. Donnelly, Land and people of Cork, pp. 191-4. 5. Solow, The land question, pp.66-70. 6. Bess, comm., minutes of evidence i, p.469. 7. ibid., p.472. 8. ibid., p.475. 9. ibid., p.654. 10. Cowper comm., minutes o f evidence, p.737. 11. Bess, comm., minutes of evidence i, p.31. 12. Vaughan, Landlords and tenants, p.51. 13. ibid., ii, p.1289. 14. Crofton estate rentals, 1852, 1880. (N.L.I., Crofton papers, MSS 4089 and 5632). 15. Clonbrock estate rentals, 1854, 1869 and 1880. (N.L.I., Clonbrock papers, MSS 19622, 19632, 19633). 16. Butler of Castlecrine estate rentals, 1848-80. (N.L.I., Butler of Castlecrine papers, MSS 5410-14, 5422) 17. Ashtown estate rentals, 1852-72. (N.L.I., Ashtown papers, MSS 1765-9). 18. Dun, Landlords and tenants in Ireland, p.41. 19. Pratt estate rentals, 1850-97. (N.L.I., Pratt papers, MSS 3122, 5081-91). 20. Headfort estate rentals 1866-93. (N.L.I.,'Headfort rentals, MSS 23398-400). 21. Cloncurry estate rentals, 1850, 1880. (N.L.I., Cloncurry papers, MSS 5665, 12898) 22. Bess. comm, report, p.3. 23. Quoted in Solow, The land question, p.28. 24. Bess, comm., minutes o f evidence i, p.470. 25. Returns by provinces and counties o f cases of eviction which have come to the knowledge of the constabulary in each year 1849 to 1880 H.C. 1881, (Cl 85) lxxvi. 26. ibid.

299 p p 104-112 27. Bess, comm., minutes o f evidence i, p.424. 28. ibid., p.407. 29. ibid., p. 152. 30. ibid. 31. ibid., p. 1026. 32. ibid., p.656. 33. ibid., pp.540-1. 34. ibid., p.453. 35. P.J. Corish, Maynooth College, 1795-1995 (Dublin, 1995), pp. 182-83. 36. ibid., p. 183. 37. Cannadine, 'Aristocratic indebtedness', p.633. 38. 'Instructions for counsel to advise on the title, direct searches etc.' prepared by O' Hagan solicitors for the trustees of Maynooth college, 3 Nov. 1879. (M.M.P., 112/1). 39. 'Schedule of documents lodged to the Irish Land Commission by the solicitors of Maynooth college, 19 Oct. 1908'. ibid., 107/10. 40.'Rental and particular of charges affecting estates of Samuel H. Osborne, Duleek, Co. Meath, 22 Mar. 1871'. ibid., 108/15. 41. Curtis, 'Encumbered wealth', p.343. 42. ibid. 43. ibid, p.351. 44. ibid., p.357. 45. Jackson, Col. EdwardSaunderson, p. 180. 46. ibid. 47. Charges on Leinster estate, 1847. 48. Clonbrock estate rental and account, 1882. (N.L.I., Clonbrock papers, MS 19635). 49 .ibid, 1894, MS 19647 50. Quoted in W.E. Vaughan, 'Assessment of economic performance of Irish landlords', p. 185. 51. See Vaughan, Landlords and tenants, pp. 130-7. 52. Curtis, 'Encumbered wealth', p.339. 53. ibid., p.339. 54. Bess, comm., minutes of evidence i, p. 16.

300 p p 112-116 55. ibid., p.786. 56. Cowper comm., minutes of evidence, p.655. 57. Irish Landowners' Convention Report, 1893-94, pp.28-9. 58. Preliminary report o f Irish Landowners' Convention, 1886-7 (Dublin, 1887), p. 16. 59. Abstract of agreement for loan between Lord Granard and the trustees of Maynooth college, 8 April 1871. (M.M.P., 109/1) [Hereafter cited as Granard mortgage abstract).. 60. Report o f president o f Maynooth college, 1887-88, p. 14. (Maynooth college archives) 61. J.S. Donnelly jnr., Landlord and tenant in nineteenth-century Ireland (Dublin, 1973), p.19. 62. Ibid. 63. Draft agreement of loan between trustees of Maynooth college and Lord Cloncurry, 18 May 1873. (M.M.P., 112/1) 64. Clonbrock rental and accounts, 1894. (N.L.I., Clonbrock papers, MS 19647). 65. List of encumbrances of Leinster estate, n.d. (N.L.I., Leinster papers, MS 19692). 66. ibid. 67. Thomson, Woodbrook, p.36. 68. Vaughan, Landlords and tenants, p. 132. 69. Curtis, 'Encumbered wealth', p.338. 70. Ormonde estate rentals and accounts, 1870-90 (N.L.I., Ormonde papers, MSS 23800-01) 71. ibid. 1895-1903, MSS 23724-33. 72. ibid. 73. Headfort estate rentals and accounts, 1901-03. (N.L.I., Headfort papers, MSS 25341(1-3) ). 74.Clonbrock estate account books, 1880-1935. (N.L.I., Clonbrock papers, MSS 19511-14). 75. Clonbrock estate rentals and accounts, 1882-98, 1902-03 ibid. MSS 19633-58. 76. Because all of these charges, and especially various forms of tax, became more threatening to the survival of the big house in the twentieth century, they are left to be dealt with in more detail in chapter 9 where reference will also be made to amounts expended in this way by landlords in the nineteenth century.

301 p p 116-120 77. Clonbrock estate rentals and accounts, 1880-90. (N.L.I., Clonbrock papers, MSS 19633-43). 78. ibid., MSS 19635-51. 79. Dim, Landlords and tenants in Ireland, p.33. 80. Jackson, Col. Edward Saunderson, p. 182. 81. Ormonde estate rentals and accounts, 1870-90 (N.L.I., Ormonde papers, MSS 23800-01). 82. Vaughan, Landlords and tenants, p. 120. 83. Saunderson, The Saundersons o f Castlesaunderson, pp. 66-7. 84. Dun, Landlords and tenants in Ireland, p.35. 85. 'Tenant farmer' to the editor of Irish Times 10 Oct. 1886. Irish Times, 11 Oct 1886. 86. Clonbrock rentals and accounts, 1882-90. (N.L.I., Clonbrock papers, MSS 19635-19643). 87. Irish Times, 28 Dec. 1880. 88. Dun, Landlords and tenants in Ireland, p.24. 89. ibid. 90. ibid. 91. W. Stewart Trench, Realities of Irish life (London, 1869), p.330. 92. ibid., p.329. 93. ibid., p.330. 94. ibid., p.329. 95. Dun, Landlords and tenants in Ireland, p.35. 96. Vaughan, Landlords and tenants, p. 121. 97. Abstract of payments for Powerscourt estate 1883 and 1884. (N.L.I., Powerscourt papers, unsorted P.C. 15) 98. Crofton estate rentals and accounts, 1851-2, 1854-5, 1861-73, 1875-9. (N.L.I., Crofton papers, MSS 4074-94, 5632-3). 99. Dun, Landlords and tenants in Ireland, p.25. 100. Ormonde estate rentals and accounts, 1879-90. (N.L.I., Ormonde papers, MSS 23800-01). 101. Dun, Landlords and tenants in Ireland, p.50. 102. Cloncurry rentals and accounts, 1881-89. (N.L.I., Cloncurry papers, MSS 12899-907). 103. Butler of Castlecrine estate rentals and accounts, 1894-7. (N.L.I., Butler of Castlecrine papers, MS 5426).

302 p p 120-126 104. Dun, Landlords and tenants in Ireland, pp.25-6. 105. Vaughan, Landlords and tenants, pp. 122, 277-8. 106. ibid., p. 122. 107. ibid., pp. 122-3. 108. Cormac O'Grada, 'The investment behaviour of Irish landlords, 1850-75: Some preliminary findings' in Agricultural History Review, 23, (1975), pp.151-3. 109. Bess, comm., minutes of evidence i, p. 129. 110. Donnelly, Land and people o f Cork, p. 169. 111. I.L.C., The land question, Ireland, no.3: Facts and figures (Dublin, 1880), p.33. 112. Solow, The land question, p. 172 113. Donnelly, Land and people of Cork, pp.249-50. 114. ibid., p.265. 115. Bess. comm, report, p.8. 116. Leinster Express, 1 Nov. 1879. 117. Brian Jenkins, Sir William Gregory o f Coole: The biography of an Anglo- Irishman (Buckinghamshire, 1986), p.287. 118. Weekly Freeman's Journal, 24 Dec. 1880. 119. ibid., and Freeman's Journal, 27 Dec. 1880. 120. ibid., 14 Jan. 1881. 121. Weekly Freeman's Journal, 1 Jan. 1881. 122. ibid., 22 Jan. 1881. 123. ibid., 24 Dec. 1880. 124. Clonbrock estate rentals and accounts (N.L.I., Clonbrock Papers, MS 19620-34). 125. For a fuller discussion on this see below pp. 416-422. 126. John George Adair to Fr. Thomas Murphy, Mountmellick, Queen's Co., 25 Oct 1879. Quoted in Leinster Express 1 Nov. 1879. 127. I.L.C., The land question in Ireland, vol.xiv: The working of the land act (London, 1882), p.35. 128. A return showing according to provinces and counties the number of cases in which judicial rents have been fixed by all the methods provided by the land law acts for a first and second statutory term, respectively, to 31 December 1902 with particulars as to acreage, former rents of holdings, and percentages of reductions in rents. H.C. 1903, lvii, 91. 129. ibid.

303 126- 130. Weekly Freeman's Journal, 19 Mar. 1887. 131. Handwritten copy of memo, on Congreve estate rents and reductions granted, 24 April 1883. (N.A., Congreve papers, 1079/4/76). 132. Weekly Freeman’s Journal 2 July 1887. 133. ibid., 7 Dec. 1887. 134. ibid., 18 Feb. 1888. 135. Report o f the Irish land commissioners for the period from 22 August 1882 to 22 August 1883 and as to proceedings under the Arrears o f Rent (Ireland) Act 1882 to 27 October 1883. H.C. 1884, bciv. 136. ibid. 137. ibid. 138. Cowper comm., minutes of evidence, p. 150. 139. D.C.M.C.R., N.Div., Aug. 1896. 140. Ibid., Sept. 1896. 141. 1st marquis of Dufferin and Ava to E. Carson, 24 April 1897. Quoted in Buckland, Documentary history, p.48. 142. Return o f payments made to landlords by the Irish land commission pursuant to the first and sixteenth sections o f the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Act 1882. H.C., 1884, lxiv. 143. An Act to Make Provisions Respecting Certain Arrears of Rent in Ireland. 45 and 46 Viet., c. xlix (18 Aug. 1882)). 144. ibid. 145. ibid. 146. For his solvency see Jackson, Col. Edward Saunderson, pp. 180-83. 147. Laurence Geary, The plan o f campaign, 1886-91 (Cork, 1986), p. 180. 148. ibid. 149. Freeman's Journal 15 Dec. 1886. 150. Geary, Plan o f campaign, p. 165. 151. Freeman's Journal, 27 Nov. 1886, 10 Jan. 1887. 152. ibid., p. 159. 153. This was done by using Appendix 2 of Geary, Plan of campaign, pp. 154-77. 154. Freeman's Journal 3 Dec. 1886. 155. ibid., 22,27 Jan., 9 April 1888. 156. D.C.M.C.R., W. Div., Jan. 1889.

304 p p 131-138 157. ibid., Dec. 1889 and Nov. 1890. 158. Freeman's Journal 1 Dec. 1886, 14 Feb. 1887, Weekly Freeman’s Journal, 19 Feb. 1887. 159. Weekly Freeman's Journal, 24 Dec. 1887. 160. Ibid., 9 Dec. 1886 and Geary, Plan o f campaign, p. 159. 161. Freeman's Journal 28 Feb. 1888. 162. ibid., 27 Nov. 1888. 163. ibid. 164. Geary, Plan o f campaign, p. 178. 165. Based on information supplied to the Cowper commission by Arthur Mac Murrough Kavanagh. Cowper comm., minutes o f evidence, p. 73 8. 166. Geary, Plan o f campaign, p. 170. 167. Freeman's Journal 9 Dec. 1886. 168. Cloncurry estate rentals, 1875-89. (N.L.I., Cloncurry papers, MSS 12893-12907). 169. Clonbrock estate rental and account, 1882. (N.L.I., Clonbrock papers, MS 19,635). 170. Summary of income and expenditure on Mahon of Cast legar estate, 1881-86. (N.L.I., Mahon of Castlegar papers, MS 23,348). 171. Vaughan, Landlords and tenants, p.218. 172. Donnelly, Land and people o f Cork, p.251. 173. ibid., p.227. 174. Quoted in Solow, The land question , pp. 145-6. 175. Hansard, 4th series, 74, 18 July 1899, col. 1138. 176. ibid. 177. Vaughan, Landlords and tenants, p. 109. 178. Quoted in Donnelly, Land and people o f Cork, p.305. 179. The Times, 9 Dec. 1882. 180. Cowper comm., minutes o f evidence, p. 16. 181. Copy of letter from F. Crozier to president of Maynooth college, 30 Jan. 1888. (M.M.P., 110/16) 182. R.H. Beauchamp and Orr to Lord Leitrim, 11 Dec. 1906. (N.L.I., Clements papers, unsorted P.C. 630) 183. ibid., 15 Jan. 1908. ibid.

305 pp 138-142 184. Return showing the number o f properties under the control o f the land courts o f Ireland, giving the date when each property came under their control the number of tenants and present gross rental of each estate, where receivers have been appointed, and showing also when each estate was last put up for sale by the court. H.C. 1890, lx, 74. 185. Cannadine, Decline and fall of the British aristocracy, p.95. 186. R.C.B. report, 1886, pp.9-10. 187. ibid., p.ll. 188. ibid, 1890, p. 12. 189. ibid., 1901, p.14. 190. ibid., 1886,p .ll. 191. ibid., p.44. 192. ibid., p.44. 193. E. Murphy to Rev. Farrelly, 29 Dec. 1880. (M.M.P., 107/7) 194. Rev. Boylanto Sir A.J.R. Stewart, 28 Sept. 1882. ibid. 195. F. Crozier to Rev. Farrelly, 7 July 1881. ibid., 110/16. 196. ibid., 4 Oct. 1888. ibid. 197. Granard mortgage abstract 198. A.W. Percival to Rev. O'Hagan, 24 Feb. 1881. ibid., 110/12 199. F. Crozier to Rev. Farrelly, 7 July 1881. ibid., 110/16 200. Statement of Lord Granard's interest account from May 1880, n.d. ibid. 201. President's report, 1886, p.8 202. Irish Times 8 Nov. 1887. 203. Judge T. Me Carthy to president of Maynooth college. 13 May 1887. ibid., 110/19. 204. President's report, 1888, pp. 12-3. 205. Quoted in Cork Examiner 1 Aug. 1883. 206. Quoted in Irish Landowners' Convention report, 1885, p.21. 207. ibid. 208. Quoted in Cannadine, Decline o f the British aristocracy, p.62. 306 Endnotes, Chapter 6

p p 145-151 1. An act to further amend the law relating to the occupation and ownership o f land in Ireland or for other relating purposes thereto. (33 and 34 Viet., c. xlvi (22 Aug. 1881)). 2. ibid. 3. Return o f proceedings under the Land Law (Ireland) Act up to 31 July 1884 H.C., 1884, Ixiv, 144. 4. ibid. 5. ibid. 6. ibid. 7. Comm. Lynch, Land purchase in Ireland: A retrospect and a forecast (Dublin, 1912), p.l. 8. An act to provide greater facilities for the sale of land to occupying tenants in Ireland. (44 and 45 Viet., c. cxlviiii. (22 Aug. 1885)). 9. For an excellent analysis of the mechanics of the land acts from 1881 to 1923 see, J.T. Sheehan, 'Land Purchase policy in Ireland, 1917-23: From the Irish Convention to the 1923 Land Act' (Unpublished M.A. thesis, Maynooth, 1993). 10. Return giving the names o f landowners the purchase o f whose properties under the Land Purchase (Ireland) Ireland Act 1885 has been sanctioned by the Irish land commission and sales completed to 31 December 1888. H.C., 1889, lxi, 81. - to 31 January 1889. H.C., 1890, lx, 115. 11. An act to provide further funds for the purchase of land in Ireland and to make permanent the land commission, and to provide for the improvement of the congested districts in Ireland. (51 and 52 Viet., c.cii, (5 Aug. 1891)). 12. Statement of application of sums received upon sale of Leinster estate, 1880s. (P.R.O.N.I., Leinster papers, D3078/2/15/8). 13. ibid. 14. Freeman's Journal 2 Dec. 1893. 15. Memo, by P. A. Chance on sale of the Granard estate, 25 June 1888. (M.M.P., 109/2). [Hereafter cited as Chance memo. 25 June 1888]. 16. ibid. 17. ibid. 18. Messrs. Crozier to president of Maynooth, 22 June 1886. ibid., 110/16.

307 p p 151-156 19. President's report, 1890. p.8. 20. Judge T. Me Carthy to president of Maynooth, 8 Feb. 1892. ibid., 110/19. 21. ibid. 22. O'Hagan, sols., 'Report on Granard estate, 3 Oct. 1898' ibid. 110/12. 23. Canon Confrey to president of Maynooth, 15 April 1891. ibid., 111/26. 24. Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act 1891: Returns o f advances under this act to 31 Mar. 1893 H.C., 1893-4, lxxv. ibid., to 31 Mar. 1894, H.C., 1894, lxxii, 155. ibid., to 31 Mar. 1895, ibid., to 31 Mar. 1896, H.C., 1896, lxix. ibid., to 31 Mar. 1898, H.C., 1898, bcxiv. ibid., to 31 Mar. 1899, H.C., 1899, lxxix. ibid., to 31 Mar. 1900, H.C., 1900, lxix. ibid., to 31 Mar. 1901, H.C., 1901, lxi. ibid., to 31 Mar. 1902, H.C., 1902, lxxxiv. ibid., to 31 Mar. 1903, H.C., 1903, lvii. ibid., to 31 Mar. 1904, H.C., 1904, lxxx. ibid., to 31 Mar. 1905, H.C., 1905, lxv. [Hereafter cited as 1891 Land Act advances, 1893-1905). 25. 'Statement regarding the earl of Granard's estate laid before the trustees of Maynooth college, June 1906.' (M.M.P., 110/14). 26. ibid. 27. Bence Jones, Irish country houses, p.67. 28. Return o f land stock, 1903. 29. Cowper comm., minutes o f evidence, p.473. 30. ibid., p.647. 31. ibid., P. 170. 32. Resolution adopted by Irish Land Convention, 10 Oct 1902. Quoted in Return o f resolutions of Irish Landowners Convention, 1902-03 33. Statement of Irish Land Convention, 10 Oct. 1902. Quoted in ibid. 34. For his own version of his role in the conference see, Dunraven, Past times and pastimes, vol.ii, pp.3-11. 35. Minute on Irish Land Conference Report adopted by Irish Landowners Convention on 7 Jan. 1903. Quoted in Return o f resolutions o f Irish Landowners' Convention, 1902-03. 308 156-163 36. ibid. 37. Report of Irish Land Conference, 3 Jan. 1903. Quoted in ibid. 38. See Irish Land Convention Report, 1904, p.l 1. 39. Land Purchase (Ireland) Act 1903 (3 Ed., c.xxxvii (1 Nov. 1903)). 40. Kolbert and O'Brien, Land reform in Ireland, p.42. 41. All of the information which follows is drawn from the Return of advances under the 1903 and 1909 Land Acts for the years from 1903 to 1925, and tables 5.16 and 5.17 in chapter 5. 42. Jackson, Col. Edward Sounder son, p.202. 43. ibid. 44. ibid., p.204. 45. C.H. Maude to sec. of estates commissioners, 15 Jan. 1909. Quoted in Maxwell, Irish land purchase cases, 1904-11, p.219. 46. ibid. 47. See below p.369. 48. An act to provide funds for the purchase of land in Ireland and to make permanent the Land Commission and to provide for the improvement of the congested districts in Ireland. (51 and 52 Viet., c.cii (5 Aug. 1891). 49. Royal commission on congestion in Ireland: Final report [Cd 4097] H.C., 1908, xlii, p.12. 50. ibid., pp. 12-3. 51. ibid., p. 12. 52. Kolbert and O'Brien, Land reform in Ireland, pp.42-3. 53. Irish Land Commission report for the period from 1 April 1923 to 31 March 1928, p.20. 54. Returns of advances under 1903 and 1909 Land Acts, 1922-3. 55. C.D.B. report, 1919-20, pp. 37-8. 56. Irish Landowners' Convention Report, 1905, pp. 9-10. 57. ibid. 58. ibid. 59. ibid., p. 10. 60. ibid., p. 12. 61. Irish Landowners’ Convention Report 1910, p.61.

309 163-168 62. Messrs. Guiness and Mahon to W.H. Mahon, 18 Oct. 1910. (N.L.I., Mahon papers, MS 23373). 63. Irish land commission report, 1923-8, p. 14. 64. Irish Landowners' Convention Report, 1910. p. 13. 65. ibid., p. 16. 66. Confidential memo, by Sir H. Doran to C.D.B., 1917. (N.A., Childers papers, Box 2) [Hereafter cited as Doran memo.] 67. Confidential report of the Irish committee on land purchase on the amendments referred to them by the Irish Convention, 9-10 Jan. 1918. ibid., Box 1. 68. ibid. 69. ibid. 70. Doran memo. 71. ibid. 72. Lord Clonbrock, The Irish land question' in The Morning Post, 17 Feb. 1903. 73. Royal Commission on Congestion in Ireland: Appendix to the tenth report, minutes o f evidence taken in Counties Galway and Roscommon, 18 September to 4 October 1907 and documents relating thereto. [Cd 4007], H.C. 1908, xliii, p. 177. 74. ibid., p.285. 75. ibid., p. 178. 76. Return of untenanted land and demesnes, 1906. 77. ibid. 78. Report of estates commissioners...to 31 March 1921. 79. Return of advance under the Irish Land Act 1903 during the month o f November 1909. [C 5488], H.C., 1909, lxxiii. 80. ibid., Jan.-Dee. 1913. [Cd 722] H.C., 1914, lxvi, p.xxv. 81. ibid., p. 124. 82. ibid., May-Dee. 1906. [Cd 3531], H.C., 1907, lxx, p.23. 83. Kolbert and O'Brien, Land reform in Ireland, p.46. 84. Iris Oifigiuil 5 Nov. 1926. 85. Irish land commission report, 1923-28, p.14. 86. P. Hogan, Memo, on the land bill of 1920, 14 Dec. 1922. (N.A., Dept of Taoiseach files, S1995). 310 p p 168-173 87. Memo, from P. Hogan to Pres. Cosgrave, 18 April 1923. ibid., S3192. 88. Memo, from P. Hogan to Pres. Cosgrave, 7 April 1923. ibid. 8 9. An Act to amend the law relating to the occupation and ownership of land and for other purposes relating thereto, no. 42 of 1923, sect. 24(1). 90. ibid. 91. ibid. sect. 24(1-2). 92. ibid., sect.(19). 93. ibid. 94. Iris Oifigiuil 5 Nov. 1926. 95. ibid., 14 April, 13 Feb., 30 June 1925. 96. ibid., 14 April 1925. 97. ibid., 12 Oct. 1926. 98. ibid., 14 Nov. 1924. 99. ibid., 11 Dec. 1925. 100. Draft of agreement of loan between the trustees of Maynooth college and Valentine Lord Cloncurry, 18 May 1873. (M.M.P., 112/1) 101. Draft agreement of loan between trustees of Maynooth college and Valentine Lord Cloncurry, 19 June 1874. ibid. 102. Lord Cloncurry to bursar of Maynooth college, 5 Dec. 1923. ibid. 112/11. 103. Memo, by Fr. Maguire, bursar, on Cloncurry mortgage, n.d (c. Feb. 1928). ibid. 112/12. 104. O'Hagan sols, to White sols. 24 Feb. 1928. ibid. 114/13. 105. Copy of resolution adopted by trustees of Maynooth college re. Loan to Lord Cloncurry, ? Oct. 1920 ibid. 112/9. 106. Lord Cloncurry to bursar 5 Dec. 1923. 107. White sols, to O'Hagan sols. 20 Jan. 1921. ibid. 112/10. 108. ibid. 109. Fr. Maguire, bursar, to Lord Cloncurry, 3 June 1924. ibid. 112/11.

311 p p 173-179 110. Lord Cloncurry to Fr. Maguire, 4 June 1924. ibid. 111. Fr. Maguire to Lord Cloncurry, 10 Mar. 1924. ibid. 112/11. 112. Iris Oifigiuil, 20 April 1926. 113. White and White sols, to O'Hagan sols. 25 Aug. 1926. (M.M.P. 112/13). 114. Memo, by Fr. Maguire on Cloncurry mortgage. 115. White and White sols, to O'Hagan sols., 18 Feb. 1928. ibid. 112/13. 116. O'Hagan sols, to Fr. Maguire, 12 May 1928. ibid. 117. White and White sols, to O'Hagan sols. 4 Sept. 1934. ibid. 118. Land Act 1931, no. 11 of 1931, section 9(2). 119. Iris oifigiuil, 1 May-31 Aug. 1931. 120. ibid. 121. Dail debates, xlviii, 13 July 1933, 2378. 122. ibid., 2379. 123. ibid., 2380. 124. ibid. 125. ibid., 2395. 126. Irish Land Act 1933, no.38 of 1933, sect.(29). 127. Iris Oifigiuil, 17 Jan., 13 Nov. 1936. 128. Kolbert and O'Brien, Land reform in Ireland, p.55. 129. R.C.B. report, 1871, p.28. 130. ibid. 131. ibid., 1903, p.40. 132. G. De L. Willis, sec. of Irish Landpwners' Convention to editor of Freemans Journal, 9 Sept. 1903. Freemans Journal, 10 Sept. 1903. 133. ibid. 134. Royal Commission on Congestion in Ireland: Final report, pp. 69-70. 135.R.C.B. report, 1924, p. 10. 136. R.C.B. report, 1919, pp. 31-2. 137. ibid., 1926, p.9.

312 p p 179-186 138. See table 9.4. 139. R.C.B. report, 1903, p.ll. 140. ibid., p. 14. 141. ibid., 1905, p.14. 142. ibid., p. 15. 143. R.C.B. mortgage ledgers, Dl-3, Y. 144. Will of Percy B. Bernard, Earl of Bandon, 24 Jan. 1925. (N.A., IB-29-2). 145. Iris Oifigiuil, 29 May 1931. 146. Statement of application of sums received on sale of Leinster estate, 1887-90. (P.R.O.N.I., Leinster papers, D3078/2/15/8). 147. Quoted in Michael Estorick, Heirs and Graces: The claim to the dukedom of Leinster (London, 1981), p. 101. 148. Irish Times 9 Jan. 1923. 149. ibid. 150. Evidence of F.S. Solomon acting on behalf of the duke of Leinster during his second bankruptcy case, 1923. Quoted in ibid. 151. Weekly Irish Times 13 Jan. 1923. 152. Irish Times 9 Jan. 1923. 153. R.C.K. Ensor, England, 1870-1914 (Oxford, 1936), p.217. 154. Sixty-fourth report of His Majesty's revenue commissioners, 1921. [Cmd 1436], H.C. 1921, xiv, p.9. 155. First annual report of the revenue commissioners of Saorstat Eireann for the year ended 31 March 1924, pp.48-9. 156. ibid., p.48. 157. ibid., 1930, p.57. 158. ibid., 1950, p.72. 159. ibid., p.49. 160. ibid., 1930, p.61. 161. ibid. 162. Earl of Halsbury, Law o f England, vol. xvi, p. 162. 163. Cannadine, Decline o f the British aristocracy, p.93. 164. Sixty-fourth report of H.M. revenue commissioners, p. 132. 165. R.B. Mac Dowell, Land and learning: Two Irish clubs (Dublin, 1993), p.8.

313 186-191 166. Headfort estate ledgers, 1897, 1916, 1920. (N.L.I., Headfort papers, MSS 26697 (2,43,47). 167. Ormonde estate ledgers, 1917-9, 1925. (N.L.I., Ormonde papers, MSS 23727-9, 23735). 168. Irish Times 6 Aug. 1921. 169. ibid., 13 Sept. 1921. 170. ibid. 171. ibid. 172. ibid. 7 Jan. 1922. 173. Royal Commission of enquiry on congestion in Ireland: Appendix to tenth report, minutes o f evidence, p. 182. 174. Earl of Ossory's estate: Particulars on invested capital, 1936-45. (N.L.I., Ormonde papers, MS 23990). 175. Jackson, Col. Edward Saunderson, p.208. 176. ibid. 177. Final will and testament of Vise. Doneraile, 8 Jan. 1960. (N.A., Wills, Cork 1960) 178. Affidavit for revenue: Estate duty. Enclosed in ibid. 179. Bence-Jones, Irish country houses, p. 106. 180. Longley Taylor, Buckinghamshire, to Lord Wicklow, 13 Sept. 1937. (N.L.I., Wicklow papers, unsorted P.C. 225 (2)). 181. F. Chalmeley to Viscount Monck (who was acting as trustee of the estate), 30 Jan. 1917. (N.L.I., Monck papers, MS 26869). 182. Statement of estate duties and charges on estate ofLord Courtown, n.d. c.1917. ibid. PC 225(5). 183. ibid. 184. Last will and testament of the earl of Courtown, 4 Feb. 1958. (N.A., Wills, Pr 341). 185. Bence-Jones, Irish country houses, p.93. 186. Earl of Dunraven, Crisis in Ireland, p.21. 187. ibid. 188. 'Western Landowner' to the editor of Irish Times, 18 July 1922. Irish Times 21 July 1922. 189. See pp 168-176. 190. Summary of receipts and payments on Wicklow estate, 1934-36. (N.L.I., Wicklow papers, unsorted) 314 p p 191-195 191. D. Johnston, The inter war economy in Ireland : Studies in Irish economic and social history 4 (Dundalk, 1985), p.5. 192. ibid., p. 16. 193. ibid., pp. 16-7. 194. Summary of receipts of payment for the year ending 31 Dec. 1937 on Wicklow estate. (N.L.I., Wicklow papers, unsorted PC 225(5)). 195. Auditor's report for Lord Wicklow for she months ending 30 June 1937. ibid. 196. Bence-Jones, Irish country houses, p.259. 197. Butler of Castlecrine estate cattle book, 1896-1930. (N.L.I., Butler of Castlecrine papers, MS 4254). 198. ibid. 199. Bence-Jones, Irish country houses, p.66. 200. These figures are based on a study of the books of advances under the Irish Land Purchase Acts, 1881-1925. 201. Ormonde estate rental and ledger, 1920-23. (N.L.I., Ormonde papers, MS 23750-3). 202. Ormonde estate ledgers and accounts, 1920-1. ibid., MSS 23750-1. 203. ibid. 204. ibid., 1893, 1918. MSS 23723, 23748.

315 Endnotes, Chapter 7

p p 197-203

1. Foster, Modern Ireland, p.377. 2. Hoppen, Elections, politics and society, p.84. 3. ibid., p.336. 4. Cannadine, Aspects o f aristocracy, p.9. 5. N. Oliver, Introduction to the calendar of correspondence of the 3rd duke of Leinster (P.R.O.N.I., Leinster papers). 6. Walker, Parliamentary results, pp. 107-11. 7. Foster, Modern Ireland, p.378. 8. Walker, Parliamentary results, pp. 193-4. 9. ibid. 10. ibid., pp. 115-19. 11. ibid., pp.l 12-17. 12. I.L.P.U., Local government in Ireland: A sketch o f the present system and methods o f procedure (Dublin, 1886), p.8. 13. Virginia Crossman, Local government in nineteenth century Ireland (Belfast, 1994), pp. 17-8. 14. Quoted in ibid., p. 18. 15. Quoted in ibid. 16. ibid., p.20. 17. ibid., pp.20-1. 18.1.L.P.U., Local government in Ireland, p.5. 19. Crossman, Local government in nineteenth century Ireland, p.8. 20. ibid. 21.1.L.P.U., Local government in Ireland, p.8. 22. J.C. Lyons, Anecdotes from the historical appendix to the grand juries of the County o f Westmeath (Lodestown, 1842) pp 14-15. 23. Crossman, Local government in nineteenth century Ireland, p. 15. 24. Quoted in ibid., p.23. 25. Fingall, Seventy years young, p. 11. 26.1.L.P.U., Local government in Ireland, p.5. 27. ibid.

316 p 203-210 28. Edward Wakefield, An account of Ireland, statistical and political (London, 1812), p.347. 29. For an excellent summary of the functions of the board of guardians (and indeed of all the local offices described above), see W.F. Bailey, Local and centralised government in Ireland (London, 1888), pp. 18-30. 30. W.L. Feingold, 'Land League power: The Tralee poor law election of 1881' in Samuel Clarke and J.S. Donnelly (eds.), Irish peasants: Violence and political unrest 1780-1914 (Wisconsin, 1983), p.287. 31. ibid. 32. ibid., p.289. 33. Cannadine, The decline of the British aristocracy, p.36. 34. R.V. Comerford, The Fenians in context: Irish politics and society 1848-82 (Dublin, 1885), p.21. 35. Hoppen, Elections, politics and society in Ireland, p.471. 36. ibid., p.472. 37. Foster, Modern Ireland, p.403. 38. Quoted in Irish Landowners' Convention report 1897, p.22. 39. ibid. 40. Marquis of Sligo, Westport house, p.51. 41. P.D.A. annual report, 1881, p.6. 42. ibid., p.6. 43. ibid., pp.9-23. 44. ibid., 1882, pp.22-30. 45. Foster, Modern Ireland, p.403. 46. Hoppen, Elections, politics and society in Ireland, p. 169. 47. ibid. 48. ibid. 49. Walker, Parliamentary results, 1800-1922, pp. 122-27. 50. Quoted in Cannadine, Decline of the British aristocracy, p. 169. 51. Shane Leslie, The Irish tangle for English readers (London, 1946), p. 150. 52. Walker, Parliamentary results, 1800-1922, p.133. 53. ibid., pp. 122-6. 54. Hoppen, Elections, politics and society, p.329. 55. Lady Leslie to Lord Salisbury, 2 Dec. 1885. Quoted in D.C. Savage, 'The origins of the Ulster Unionist party, 1885-6' in Irish Historical Studies, xii (1961), p. 186.

317 p p 210-219 56. Walker, Parliamentary results, 1801-1922, p. 134. 57. Cannadine, Decline o f the British aristocracy, p. 168. 58. Hoppen, Elections, politics and society in Ireland, p.330. 59. ibid. 60. Walker, Parliamentary results, 1801-1922, pp. 130-36. 61. ibid. 62. Buckland, Irish Unionism I, p.5. 63. Walker, Parliamentary results, pp.147,172. 64. ibid., p. 128. 65. Freeman's Journal, 1 Mar. 1881. 66. Feingold, 'The Tralee poor law election of 1881', p.289. 67. Thom's directory, 1886, pp.1033-190. 68. Cork Examiner, 28 Sept. 1889. 69. Thom's directory 1900, pp.1031-193. 70. Bess. comm, minutes o f evidence i, p.90. 71. Crossman, Local government in nineteenth century Ireland, p.49. 72. Thomas Nelson, The land war in Co. Kildare (Maynooth, 1985), p.25. 73.1.L.P.U., Ireland under the League (London, 1887), p.7. 74. The Belfast newsletter 17 Sept. 1901 75. ibid. 76. Thom's directory, 1900, pp.l031-193. 77. ibid., 1904, p. 1246. 78. ibid., 1904, pp. 1098-253. 79. ibid., 1912, pp.l 137-293. 80. Northern Standard 30 Sept. 1911. 81. Quoted in ibid., 20 July 1912. 82. ibid., 4 Feb. 1911. 83. W.B. Stanford, 'Protestantism since the treaty' in The Bell (June, 1944), p.230. 84. The Morning Post 11 April 1899 85. Col. Saunderson to the editor of The Times, 18 Oct. 1906. The Times 19 Oct. 1906. 86. The Times, 2 May 1907. 87. Freeman's Journal, 17 June 1907. 88. Thom's directory, 1900, p. 1193.

318 p p 219-226 89. Crossman, Local government in nineteenth century _Ireland, p. 14. 90. Cannadine, Decline o f the British aristocracy, p. 179. 91. Vaughan, Landlords and tenants, p. 14. 92. ibid., p. 168. 93. The Freeman's Journal 14 Nov. 1901. 94. ibid. 95. ibid. 96. ibid., 18 Nov. 1901. 97. ibid., 19 Dec. 1901. 98. ibid. 99. ibid. 100. ibid., 26 July 1902. 101. Daily Express 2 Dec. 1904. 102. ibid. 103. Buckland, Irish Unionism I, p.xiv. 104. Quoted in Irish Times 9 Jan. 1886. 105. Vaughan, Landlords and tenants, pp. 141-50. 106. see ibid., pp. 138-76. 107. ibid., p. 161. 108. ibid., p.161. 108. H.O.R. Forster, The truth about the Land League (London, 1883), p.83. 110.1.L.P.U., Ireland under the League, p.52. 111. ibid.,p.3. 112. ibid. 113. ibid., p.56. 114. ibid., p.54. 115. ibid. 116. Freeman's Journal 19 Nov. 1886. 117. The Times \3 Dec. 1886. 118. Quoted in Geary, The plan of campaign, p.52. 119. Quoted in I.L.C. report, 1897, p. 17. 120. ibid. 121.1.L.P.U., Union or separation (Dublin, 1886), p. 17.

319 226-232 122. Dun, Landlords and tenants in Ireland, pp.37,42. 123. Earl of Meath (ed.), The diaries o f Mary, Countess o f Meath (London, n.d.), p .70. 124. Quoted in Somerville-Large, The Irish country house p.316. 125. ibid. 126. ibid. 127.1.L.C., 1894, p. 17. 128.1.G.C.M.R., Oct. 1900. 129. ibid., Dec. 1901. 130. ibid., Oct. 1900. 131.1.U.A., The new Home Rule and the old objections (Dublin, 1906), p. 13. 132. ibid. 133. ibid. 134. ibid., pp. 13-4. 135. ibid., p.3. 136. ibid., pp.10-1. 137. ibid., p.ll. 138. The Belfast Newsletter 4 July 1883. 139. ibid. 140. Leslie MS autobiography. 141. Geary, The plan o f campaign, p.3. 142. Quoted in ibid., p.28. 143. ibid. 144. ibid., p.29. 145. The Times, 27 Jan. 1894. 146. See chapters 9 and 10. 147. Northern Standard 15 June 1912. 148. ibid., 16 July 1910. 149. Quoted in Buckland, Documentary history, p. 166. 150. I.L.P.U., Statement presented to the prime minister by the I.L.P.U. part III: Theunion vindicated Ireland's progress 1782-1800-1886 (Dublin, 1886), p.66. [Hereafter cited as I.L.P.U., The union vindicated]

320 Endnotes, Chapter 8

p p 235-241 1. Irish Times, 16 Oct. 1885. 2. ibid. 3. Quoted in Buckland, Irish Unionism I, p. 18. 4. T.A.M. Dooley, 'Protestant politics and society in Co. Monaghan, 1911-26' (M.A. thesis, Maynooth, 1984). 5. Buckland, Irish Unionism I, p. 17. 6. Irish Times 9 Jan. 1886. 7. ibid., and Buckland, Irish Unionism I, pp.24-5. 8. ibid., 16 Oct. 1885. 9. ibid., 9 Jan. 1886. 10. List of Unionist clubs o f Ireland and list o f executive committee of the council for 1895, p.3. [In private possession] 11. ibid., p.3. 12.1.U.A., Great demonstration in Dublin representing the Unionism of the provinces o f Leinster, Munster and Connaught (Dublin, 1911), p. 1. 13. ibid., pp. 1-2. 14. ibid., pp.2-3. 15. ibid., p.3. 16. Notes from Ireland Nov. 1912. 17. ibid. 18. ibid. 19. Brian Jenkins, Sir William Gregory o f Coole: The biography of an Anglo- Irishman (Buckinghamshire, 1986), p.297. 20. ibid., p. 131. 21. ibid., p.132. 22. A.M. Rowan to sec. I.U.A., 15 Oct. 1892. Quoted in Buckland, Documentary history, p. 139. 23. The Westminster Gazette 16 Jan. 1909. 24. R.J. Shaw to P. Wicks, 15 June 1914. Quoted in Buckland, Documentary history, p. 173. 25.1.L.P.U., The truth about the Irish election of 1885, p.5. 26. ibid., p. 14. 27. Irish Times 9 Jan. 1886.

321 p p 241-248 28. ibid. 29. I.U.A., The intolerance o f Irish Nationalism towards Irish Unionism (Dublin, 1908), p.2. 30. ibid. 31. Shaw to Wicks, 15 June 1914. 32. Freeman's Journal 14 Oct. 1912. 33. Notes from Ireland, Nov. 1912. 34. C.I.C.M.R. Co. Leitrim Jan. 1914. 35. I.U.A., The Irish Unionist Alliance: An account of its work and organisation (Dublin, 1893). 36. Buckland, Irish Unionism I, pp. 1-28. 37. Hoppen, Elections, politics and society in Ireland', p.331. 38. J.W. Taylor (ed.), The Rossmore incident (Dublin, 1884), p. 13. 39. Hugh Shearman, Anglo-Irish relations (London, 1959), p. 151. 40. W.S. Churchill, Lord Randolph Churchill (London, 1906), p.59. 41. D.C.M.C.R. northern div. Feb. 1893. 42. ibid. 43.1.G.C.M.R., Jan. 1901. 44. Dooley, 'Protestant politics in Monaghan', p.50. 45. Northern Standard 9 Aug. 1913. 46. C.I.C.M.R. Cavan, July 1913. 47. ibid., Donegal, Sept. 1912, and 'Ulster movement against Home Rule.' 48. E. Carson at Unionist demonstration in Newbliss Co. Monaghan Aug. 1913. Northern Standard 9 Aug. 1913. 49. C.I.C.M.R., Co. Monaghan, May 1912. 50. ibid. 51. ibid., June 1912. 52. ibid., July 1913. 53. ibid., Cavan Sept. 1913. 54.1.G.C.M.R. May 1913. 55. C.I.C.M.R. Cavan Jan. 1914. 56. ibid. Donegal Jan. 1913. 57. ibid. April 1913. 58. ibid. Oct. 1913.

322 248-252 59. ibid. Jan 1914 and Mar. 1914 60. ibid. Jan. 1914. 61. TJlster movement against Home Rule.' 62. Stewart, The Ulster crisis, p. 86. 63. ibid. 64. Buckland, Irish Unionism II, pp.56-7. 65. Belfast Newsletter 22 Sept. 1913. 66. C.I.C.M.R. Donegal May 1914. 67. Northern Standard 13 May 1911. 68. ibid. 8 July 1911. 69. Mac Giolla Choille, Intelligence notes, p.30. 70. Northern Standard 22 Nov. 1913. 71. ibid. 1 Aug. 1914. 72. ibid. 28 Feb. 1914. 73. ibid. 1 Aug. 1914. 74. C.I.C.M.R. Co. Cavan, Mar. 1912. 75. ibid. Co. Monaghan, May 1913. 76. Belfast Newsletter 16 April 1914. 77. ibid. 78. ibid. Dec. 1913. 79. ibid., Co. Donegal, June 1914. 80.1.G.C.M.R. Feb. 1914. 81. C.I.C.M.R. Co. Cavan, Mar. 1914. 82. Const. R. Stafford to C.I. Tyrone, 10 Oct. 1913. ( P.R.O., Police reports CO 904, Part I). 83. Const. J.W. Me Cabe to C.I. Tyrone, 7 Oct. 1914. ibid. 84. Northern Standard 21 Feb. 1914. 85. Stewart, The Ulster crisis, pp.85-6. 86. ibid. 87. ibid. 88. Northern Standard. 18 April 1914. 89.1.G.C.M.R. June 1914.

323 p p 252-256 90. 'Return of arms for month ending 28 Feb. 1917, Co. Cavan.' (P.R.O., Police reports, CO 904, Part vi). 91. ibid., Co. Donegal. 92. ibid., Co. Monaghan. 93. For a fuller discussion of this see below pp. 536-48. 94. C.I.C.M.R., Co. Cavan, Aug. 1914. 95. Northern Standard, 19 Aug. 1916. 96. Buckland, Irish Unionism I, p.35. 97. ibid. 98. ibid. 99. Quoted in ibid., p.36. 100. Extract from J.M. Wilson's notes of conversations with anonymous or semi- anonymous informants during a tour of the Irish counties, 1915-7. Buckland, Documentary history, p.348. 101. Quoted in ibid. 102. ibid., p.349. 103. ibid. 104. Irish Times 21 Sept. 1914. 105. Quoted in ibid., p.343. 106. For the economic and social significance of the war to the sample families see below pp. 536-48. 107. Buckland, Documentary history, p.42. 108. Irish Times 5 Aug. 1914. 109. This is the number of letters found in the Irish Times, Freeman's Journal, and Irish Independent 6-14 Aug. 1914 written by landlords from the sample. 110. Irish Times 8 Aug. 1914. 111. ibid. 8 Aug. 1914. 112. ibid. 113. The Freeman's Journal, 7 Aug. 1914. 114. ibid. 115. ibid., 6 Aug. 1914. 116. Irish Times 6 Aug. 1914. 117. Buckland, Irish Unionism I, p.45. 118. Irish Times 6 Aug. 1914. 119. Freeman's Journal 1 July 1915.

324 pp 257-261 120. Bryan Cooper, The tenth Irish division in Gallipoli (London, 1918), p.253. 121. For a detailed picture of this conversion see Robinson, Bryan Cooper, pp. 110-23. 122.1.G.C.M.R. Feb. 1917. 123. R.B. Mac Dowell, The Irish convention (London, 1970), p.76. 124. ibid., p.77. 125. ibid., p. 120. 126. ibid., p. 127. 127. Stephen Gwynn, John Redmond's last years (London, 1919), p.313. 128. Buckland, Irish Unionism i, p. 110. 129. Northern Standard, 20 July 1918. 130. ibid. 131. Buckland, Irish Unionism II, p.202. 132. Northern Standard, 17 June 1916. 133. U. U.C. yearbook, 1917. (P.R.O.N.I., U.U.C. yearbooks, D972/17). 134. ibid. 135. Northern Standard 31 Jan. 1920. 136. 'Report of Major Saunderson', c.1917. (P.R.O.N.I., J.M. Wilson papers, D989/A/8/7/1/) 137. Major S. Saunderson to W. Martin, 10 July 1916. Quoted in Northern Standard 22 July 1916. 138. 'Report of Major Saunderson'. 139. Northern Standard 22 July 1916. 140. E. Carson to W. Martin, 17 July 1916. Quoted in ibid. 141. ibid. 142. Patrick Buckland, James Craig (Dublin, 1980), p. 14. 143. See T.A.M. Dooley, The decline o f Unionist politics in Co. Monaghan, 1911-26 (Maynooth, 1988). 144. C.I.C.M.R., Co. Monaghan, Sept. 1914. 145. ibid. Sept. 1915. 146.ibid„ Dec. 1920. 147. ibid., Co. Donegal, Aug. 1914. 148. ibid., Sept. 1914. 149. ibid., May 1915.

325 p p 262-267 150. ibid., Jan. 1917. 151. ibid., Co. Cavan, Nov. 1914. 152. Quoted in Laffan, The partition of Ireland, p.65. 153. Quoted in Northern Standard 13 Mar. 1920. 154. ibid. 155. J.M. Wilson's notes on tour of Ireland, 4 Aug. 1917. (P.R.O.N.I., J.M. Wilson papers, D989/A/9/7/). 156. Anglo Celt 17 April 1920. 157. Dundalk Democrat 17 July 1920. 158. Northern Standard, 10 April 1920. 159. Saunderson, The Saundersons of Castlesaunderson, p.73. 160. ibid., p.73. 161. Lord Famhamto H. Montgomery, 13 April 1920. Quoted in Buckland Documentary history, p.419. 162. Dundalk Democrat 17 July 1920. 163. Northern Standard 15 July 1921. 164. Charles Craig to Lord Famham, 12 May 1919. Quoted in Buckland, Documentary history, pp. 137-8. 165. Walker (ed.), Parliamentary election results in Ireland 1918-92, pp.4-9. 166. Irish Times 15 April 1921. 167. ibid., 16 Jan. 1920. 168. J.W. Garvey to F.H. Crawford, 21 Aug. 1921. Quoted in Buckland, Documentary history, p.383. 169. Y.S. Verschoyle to secretary ofl.U.A., 22 Mar. 1922. Quoted in ibid., p.392. 170. Quoted in Dunraven, Past times and pastimes II, p.202. 171. C.I.C.M.R. Cork W.R., July 1921. 172. Diary ofLady A. Howard, 10 Nov. 1921. (N.L.I., Diaries ofLady Alice Howard, MS. 3625). 173. ibid., 31 Dec. 1921. 174. See below pp. 373-77. 175. See below p.356. 176. Quoted in Irish Times 6 Mar. 1922. 177. ibid., 15 July 1922. 178. ibid., 24 Feb. 1923.

326 pp 267-272 179. Earl of Desart and Lady Sybil Lubbock, A page from the past: Memories of the earl o f Desart (London, 1936), p.222. 180. ibid. 181. Quoted in ibid., p.223. 182. ibid. 183. ibid., p.224. 184. Irish Times, 5 Feb. 1923. 185. ibid., 19 Nov. 1922. 186. ibid. 187. Pari, debates [Lords], 5th series, lii, 4 Dec. 1922, col.224. 188. J.M. Wilson to E. Carson, 14 Dec. 1922 Quoted in Buckland, Documentary history, p.389. 189. E.J. Beaumont-Nesbitt to Mrs. S. Armstrong, 19 Jan. 1925. Quoted in ibid., pp. 382-3. 190. Quoted in Irish Times 6 Aug. 1920. 191. ibid. 192. ibid., 11 Aug. 1920. 193. ibid. 14 Sept. 1920. 194. ibid. 11 Sept 1920. 195. ibid. 7 Oct. 1920. 196. ibid., 15 Jan. 1922. 197. ibid. 16 Jan. 1922. 198. ibid. 199. ibid. 20 Jan. 1922. 200. ibid. 201. ibid., 20 Feb. 1923. 202. Irish Independent 20 Jan. 1920. 203. ibid. 204. ibid., 21 Jan. 1920. 205. ibid. 206. ibid. 207. Limerick Leader 2 Feb. 1920. 208. Irish Times 22 Jan. 1923. 209. ibid., 12 Jan. 1923.

327 p p 272-277 210. ibid., 22 Jan. 1923. 211. Thom's directory, 1925, p. 1094. 212. ibid., pp. 1092-315. 213. Arthur Mitchell, Revolutionary government, p.126. 214. Walker, Irish Parliamentary results, 1918-92, pp.101-3. 215. ibid., pp. 108-15. 216. Robinson, Bryan Cooper, p. 147. 217. Walker, Irish parliamentary results 1918-92, pp. 117-25. 218. ibid., pp.117-31. 219. E. Rumpf and A.C. Hepburn, Nationalism and socialism in twentieth century Ireland (Liverpool, 1977), p.l 12. 220. D. O' Sullivan, The Irish Free State and its Senate: A study in contemporary politics (London, 1940), p.86. 221. ibid. 222. ibid. 223. ibid., pp.86-7. 224. Rumpf and Hepburn, Nationalism and socialism in twentieth century Ireland,p. 112. 225. O' Sullivan, Irish Free State and its senate, p.90. 226. Irish Times 1 Dec. 1922. 227. ibid. 228. ibid. 229. Senate debates, i, 1922-3, pp.8-9. 230. ibid, p. 14. 231. ibid., p. 10. 232. O'Sullivan, Irish Free State and its senate, p.87. 233. O'Sullivan, Irish Free State and its Senate, p.514. 234. ibid., p. 100. 235. Irish Times 10 Jan. 1923. 236. O'Sullivan, Irish Free State and its Senate, pp. 104-5. 237. Irish Times, 31 Jan., 1 Feb. 1923. 238. ibid., 3 Feb. 1923. 239. ibid., 19, 24 Feb. 1923. 240. ibid., 28 Feb. 1923.

328 278-282 241. ibid., 12 Mar. 1923. 242. ibid. 243. Senate debates, i, 1922-3, p.4. 244. ibid. 245. O'Sullivan, Irish Free State and its Senate, pp. 95, 103. 246. ibid, ii, 1923-4, p.966. 247. ibid., pp.966-7. 248. ibid., in, 1924-5, p.894. 249. O'Sullivan, Irish Free State and its Senate, p.429. 250. J.L. Mc Cracken, Representative government in Ireland: A study o f Dáil Eireann, 1919-48 {London, 1958), p.137. 251. ibid. 252. Quoted in Cannadine, Decline of the British aristocracy, p. 179. 253. Quoted in O'Sullivan, Irish Free State and its senate, p.232. 254. Abolition of the Seanad: Miscellaneous correspondence: The case against the present Seanad, n.d. (1934). (N.A., Dept, of Taoiseach files, S2926). 255. ibid. 256. ibid. 257. T.W. Westropp Bennett, Pro Domo Sua: Being the speech of the chairman of the Seanad...in defence o f the house of the Oireachtas against Mr. De Valera and the Government (Dublin, 1936), p.41. 258. Marquis of Sligo, Westport house and the Brownes, pp.64-5. 259. Quoted in Aiken McClelland, 'Orangeism in Co. Monaghan' in Clogher Record, 1978, p.400. 260. ibid. 261. Northern Standard, 18 July 1924.

329