Return of Agricultural Holdings in Ireland, compiled by the Local
Government Board of Ireland from Returns furnished by the Clerks of the Poor-law Union in Ireland in January, 1881.
Over £4, and at
RI or under, or under £10. Over 210. Total.
Ulster 72,025 ... 82,645 ... 89,287 ... 243,977 Munster 42,091 ... 34,688 ... 66,380 ... 143,159 Leinater 38,825 ... 32,251 ... 63,718 ... 134,791 Connaught 65,228 ... 47,350 ... 25,677 ... 138,255 Total 218,199 ... 196,934 ... 245,062 ... 660,185
[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."] • SIII,—While I entirely concur in the general conclusion at which Mr. Take arrived in his letter in the Spectator of March 6th, that "all solvent Irish people should oppose to the utmost the demand of Home-rule for Ireland," I must ask leave to correct some of the figures which he cites, as, stated upon his authority, they will cause many to take a much gloomier view of the economic condition of Ireland than is warranted by the facts.
In the first place, he estimates the number of tenants of land in Ireland to be 600,000. In adopting these figures, he has been misled by the " Return of Agricultural Holdings in Ireland," -compiled by the Local Government Board (Parliamentary Paper (J,-2,931, 1881), in which the number of holdings is stated to be 660,185. Bat it must not be supposed that there was a separate occupier in respect of each of these holdings. The Return was one of agricultural holdings in each county separately rated for the relief of the poor, and many such holdings were the property of one occupier.
The number of the occupiers of the soil is probably not more than 450,000. According to the Agricultural Statistics of Ire- land for the year 1884, published by the Registrar-General, the number of separate holdings is 565,254, and the number of -occupiers, 520,724. But in the returns from the local enumerators, upon which these statistics are based, only those holdings are grouped as belonging to one occupier which were in the enumerator's own district, so that an occupier who had holdings in another enumerator's district would be returned as a separate occupier in respect of the latter holdings. According to the Census of Ireland for 1881, p. 166 of the General Report, Table 48, the number of holdings is 499,109. In this table, a holding represents the land, no matter where situated in a county, which belongs to one occupier ; but it does not include land in an adjoining county belonging to the same occupier. Deducting from the number so given the number of holdings not exceeding one acre, viz., 16,879, which to a great extent represent merely occupiers of small gardens, and making allowance for the number of villa-residents in the neighbourhood of large towns, it is thought by competent judges that the number of purely agricultural holdings will probably not exceed 450,000.
Of the 499,100 holdings given by the Census Returns, 152,139 —or, say, one-third—are holdings of thirty acres each and up- wards, representing a valnation of £7,290,000 out of a total land valuation of a little over ten millions sterling. Now, it is generally admitted that with a fair rent and fixity of tenure, the occupier of a holding of thirty acres ought to be in a position to live and thrive. It would, therefore, appear that one-third of the farming class in Ireland ought to be in this enviable position. But there are many holdings between fifteen and thirty acres, which ought to enable the occupier, all things considered, to live as well as, if not better than, the skilled artisans, whose wages, though high, are precarious, and who have to pay high rents for poor and unwholesome lodgings in towns. The number of such holdings was by the Census 122,517, and their valuation £1,536,357. It would seem, then, that about three-fifths of the occupiers of the soil, representing more than four-fifths of the valuation, are in a position that would be described as an enviable one by many an English, Welsh, and Scotch voter, to whom the Irish land- lord has been, and will be again, described as a monster of tyranny, and who will be asked to vote for Home-rule as the only means of relieving the tillers of the soil from the oppression under which they are suffering.
The number of holdings under fifteen acres was 226,454, of which 65,424 were between ten and fifteen acres ; and the valua- tion of the whole was about 21,240,000. Allowing an occupier for each holding, this would give about the same number of families as that reckoned by Mr. Take in Class 1 in his letter. The economic condition of these occupiers constitutes the real Irish problem, which will not be solved by converting them into proprietors upon purchase terms, howsoever favour- able. It is, as Mr. Mitchell Henry remarked in his able letter to the Times of Saturday, February 27th, "the undoubted misery of the inhabitants of the remoter parts of Ireland, who depend for their prosperity on employment in England and Scotland, and who are reduced to desperate straits whenever trade is bad, which is dishonestly put forward as a sample of the condition of the whole of Ireland." I am far, however, from admitting that the condition of all these 200,000 families is at all as wretched as might be supposed. These persons must not be viewed as farmers, but as labourers who are better off than other labourers to the extent that they each have a piece of land, the tenant-right of which would mean often, speaking relatively, a considerable sum. Indeed, the only solution of the Irish problem is to be sought for in the direction here indicated ; but this solution is for the present past praying for, owing to the action of the National League, which has forbidden the tenants to sell. If these small holders were en- couraged to sell to those who wished to enlarge their farms, the former would be provided with the necessary capital to start them in America and the Colonies, while the latter would be swelling the number of those occupiers whose holdings are of a size to admit of their living and thriving. To set this ball rolling, the National League must be muzzled, and the State must be prepared with a well-considered scheme of emigration, and must not grudge spending largely in aid of it.
I now pass to a very extraordinary mistake on Mr. Tuke's part, for which I cannot account. He states that, taking the total area of the land of Ireland at eighteen millions of acres, it is estimated that a little over one-fourth of this area—five millions of acres—is under cultivation, tillage, and meadow, the remaining acreage consisting of rough grass, mountain, and bog." I cannot conceive where he could have got such figures, which, if they were true, would represent Ireland as being even more worthless than Mr. Giffen considers her to be, and this is saying not a little. If Mr. Tuke had applied to Dr. Grimshaw, the Registrar-General, for a copy of the Agricultural Statistics, 1884-85, he would have found that the total extent under crops, including meadow and clover, was 4,954,028 acres ; under grass, 10,245,927; under fallow, 19,075, giving a total area under cultivation of 15,219,030, as compared with 329,343 acres under woods and plantations, and 4,780,380 including bog and marsh, barren mountain-land, water, roads, fences, &c., the whole giving a total area of 20,328,753 acres. Thus, instead of there being only a fourth of the total area under cultivation, there is, in fact, only that proportion waste. This is a very serious error, and cannot be too soon corrected. Again, Mr. Tuke states that "the capital value of the whole is variously estimated at from 140 to 160 millions sterling, and the rental at from eight to ten millions." I do not understand what he means by the "capital value of the whole," but from his allusion to the " rental," I suppose it signifies the capitalised value of the rental. If, however, this be his meaning, he has greatly under-estimated the capital sum. The tenement, or Griffith's, valuation of the land is over ten millions—the exact figures being £10,188,000—and this includes, of course, land in the occupation of the owners, the valuation of which may be roughly stated at a million. Now, Griffith's valuation was always considered to be from 20 to 25 per cent. under the fair letting value ; and notwithstanding the late severe fall in prices, the principal commodities—oats, barley, butter, beef,
mutton, and pork—upon the prices of which the valuation was based, are, all round. about 30 per cent, higher than they were in 1852, when the valuation was made. Prior to the Land Act of 1881, the rental of Ireland, including that of land in the owners' hands, was between twelve and thirteen millions. Up to December 31st last, judicial rents were fixed in respect of a tenement valuation of 22,396,949, the old rental of which was 23,138,791, while the judicial rental has been fixed at 22,568,494. So far, therefore, judicial rents are about 7 per cent. over the tenement valuation. Accordingly, if all the land now in the owners' occupation, and all the land held under leases, were let at judicial rents, as they have been hitherto fixed, the judieal rental would be about eleven millions ; and as prior to the agitation the old rents were notoriously as well paid as, if not better paid than, rents in England and Scotland, it is quite certain that judicial rents would be paid if obedience to the law were enforced. Therefore, the capitalised value of the rental of Ireland ought not to be placed at less than from 2200,000,000 to 2220,000,000, or, say, twenty years' purchase thereof.
But this takes no account of the tenants' interest in the land, the capitalised value of which would represent a very large sum. How it should be estimated I am not prepared to say. But as Mr. Take institutes a comparison between the land of Ireland and the London and North-Western and Midland Railway systems quoad the amount of capital of each, I would say that, as the capital of either of these railways could be ascertained if the amounts distributed in dividends on the debenture and share capital and the rates of distribution were known, so the capital value of the laud of Ireland might likewise be ascer- tained if the amount received by the landlords in rent and the net produce retained by the tenants were known. I have said that the judicial rental would be about eleven millions, and the value of the net produce retained by the tenants is estimated to be about twenty-seven millions sterling,—the gross produce being estimated at about sixty millions. Now, twenty years' purchase of the rental and the tenant's share of the produce— i e., giving an all-round rate of 5 per cent. on the capital invested in land—amounts to ;40 millions sterling, between which and Mr. Tuke's estimate there is an ample margin for speculation as to what is the correct amount.
Assuming the value of the tenant's share of the produce to be twenty-seven millions, and the number of the occupiers to be 500,000 (although that number is probably 50,000 in excess of the actual figure), I have roughly calculated, from the statistics quoted above, that the average share of the net produce per man of the tenants whose holdings are over thirty acres is about 2130 a year; of those whose holdings are between fifteen and thirty acres, 234 a year ; and of those whose holdings are under fifteen acres, about 215 a year. I need not say that the first class, numbering 150,000 heads of families, or, say, 750,000 souls, has a direct interest in the maintenance of the connection with England in its present form, for without doubt their position would not be improved if there should be Home-rule. There are, of course, many in the second class who have a substantial stake in the country, and it is not too much to say that more than one-half of the occupiers of the soil would rejoice to see the tyranny of the National League ended.
The picture which I have drawn of the economic condition of Ireland, though not bright, is brighter than Mr. Take's, and suggests that if the congested districts along the Atlantic sea- board could be relieved of their surplus population, the economic condition of the country would compare favourably with that of any other purely agricultural community in Europe. In support of this opinion, I have the authority of such men as Mr. W. J. Harris, of Highwill Manor, Highampton, whose letter in the Economist of January 23rd, 1886, on the "Saleable Value of the Produce of Irish Farms," deserves to be read with attention ; and of Mr. Mitchell Henry, whose letter in the Times, to which I have referred, has stated the truth about the Irish problem in a manner that may reprise "sentimental writers and speakers who have yet to learn the elements of the
Previous page
