L760, 10s. Mr. Dunne, who co-operated with
him, held four town lands comprising 1304 acres, at a yearly rent of
L1348, 15s. Upon this property Lord Lansdowne had expended in drainage
and works L1993, 11s. 9d., and in buildings L631, 15s. 4d., or in all
very nearly two years' rental. On Mr. Kilbride's holdings Lord Lansdowne
had expended in drainage works L1931, 6s. 3d., and in buildings L1247,
19s. 5d., or in all more than four years' rental. Mr. Kilbride held his
lands on life leases. Mr. Dunne held his smallest holding of 84 acres on
a yearly tenure; his two largest holdings, one on a lease for 31 years
from 1874, and the other on a life lease, and his fourth holding of 172
acres on a life lease.
Where does the hardship appear in all this to Mr. Dunne or Mr. Kilbride?
On Mr. Kilbride's holdings, for instance, Lord Lansdowne expended over
L3000, for which he added to the rent L130 a year, or about 4 per cent.,
while he himself stood to pay 6-1/2 per cent, on the loans he made from
the Board of Works for the expenditure. In the same way it was with Mr.
Dunne's farms. They were mostly in grass, and Lord Lansdowne laid out
more than L2500 on them, borrowed at the same rate from the Board, for
which he added to the rent only L66 a year, or about 2-1/2 per cent. Mr.
Kilbride was a Poor-Law Guardian, and Mr. Dunne a Justice of the Peace.
The leases in both of these cases, and in those of other large tenants,
seem to have been made at the instance of the tenants themselves, and
afforded security against any advance in the rental during a time of
high agricultural prices. And it would appear that for the last quarter
of a century there has been no important advance in the rental. In 1887
the rental was only L300 higher than in 1862, though during the interval
the landlord had laid out L20,000 on improvements in the shape of
drainage, roads, labourers' cottages, and other permanent works.
Moreover, in fifteen years only one tenant has been evicted for
non-payment of rent.
"Was there any ill-feeling towards the Marquis among the tenants?" I
asked of Mr. Hind.
"Certainly not, and no reason for any. They were a good set of men, and
they would never have gone into this fight, only for a few who were in
trouble, and I'm sure that to-day most of them would be thankful if they
could settle and get back. The best of them had money enough, and didn't
like the fight at all."
All the trouble here seems to have originated with t
|