IT has been frequently asserted of late, that the customs known in Ulster under the name of tenant-right, had their origin in the Articles for the Plantation of that province. We believe this idea was first started by Dr. M'Knight, the editor of the Londonderry Standard, whose pamphlet, professing to be a demonstration of that proposition, among others, is now before us. We shall not quarrel with Dr. M'Knight about land-ownership being a state trust-a proposition which no one will dispute, and to which he is at liberty to add that property-ownership of all kinds, including the ownership of tenant-right, if he will, is also a state trust; but, if we ask, a trust for what? we do not find that Dr. M'Knight furnishes us with any answer farther than this, that, in his opinion, landlords ought to be trustees for their tenants in perpetuity at valuation rents.

Having conceded to Dr. M'Knight the priority which we believe belongs to him in originating the argument (fallacious though it be) for tenant-right from the Plantation of Ulster, we must do justice to another gentleman, whose labours in this line have been somewhat unfairly appropriated, both by Doctor M'Knight and other prominent advocates of "perpetuity and valuation." We allude to Mr. William Conner, who, more than ten years ago, commenced the agitation of the land question on these principles, and suffered heavy pecuniary loss and severe personal punishment, for what was then held to be sedition, in enunciating those doctrines. We have two pamphlets of Mr. Conner's before us, reiterating arguments which were published long before any of the present agitators were heard of, in which

he insists on these two points as the only solution of our social difficulties. Mr. Conner's claim to be the father of the perpetuity and valuation movement is perfectly well known to Dr. M'Knight and Mr. Sharman Crawford; and whatever popular favour the advocacy of these doctrines in times of danger, and the endurance of fine and imprisonment for their promotion, ought to elicit, belongs, and ought to be conceded to Mr. Conner.

We believe if the people knew their own interests, the proposal for perpetual tenures and valuation rents would not elicit any favour, and that the advocates of a system of that kind would be regarded as dangerous visionaries; but when visionary theories are in fashion, it is but just to direct the popular regards to the man who is entitled to be called the father of this agitation.

Mr. Conner's leading idea, to which he has adhered with resolute pertinacity through a twenty years' struggle, is, that inasmuch as the quantity of land in the market cannot be increased, while the number of claimants to whose existence it is essential increase very rapidly, the state is called on to prevent the claimants ruinously overbidding one another, by saying to the proprietor, "you must not charge more than so much rent for your land." The consequence of such a measure, apart from all considerations of moral rectitude, may be shortly indicated thus: The present landlords would be reduced to beggary-the new proprietors would be mere rent-chargers, without any control-the small farmer would become a middleman—the small capitalist, turning farmer, would exhaust himself by paying a fine heavy

in proportion to the lowness of the rent; -and the poor man, without ready money to buy the occupancy, would find it more difficult than ever to procure the least spot of ground. Yet, to produce this state of things, Doctor M'Knight and Mr. Conner would annul existing contracts between man and man, giving to one, and taking from the other, without any consideration; a proceeding which could only be taken in time of revolution, and then could only be justified by the certainty of its benefiting all.

We must say, in farther justice to Mr. Conner, that not only is he entitled to priority in the advocacy of these principles, but that he has stated his argument and developed his conclusions much more simply, rationally, and fairly, than Dr. M'Knight. He affects no historical learning; but, assuming that a tenure in perpetuity would give the necessary confidence to induce improvement, and that the competition for land is so excessive as to justify the interference of the state in altering and controlling men's bargains for the payment of rent, he concludes, without any violation of logical propriety, that the present occupiers ought to hold in perpetuity, at rents to be determined by a general valuation; and so gets rid of all question of compensation for improvements and metaphysical partnerships, considering that the tenant who could not pay a "valuation-rent" would not be entitled to any claim of that kind.

Dr. McKnight, on the other hand, arrives at his conclusion by a devious argument, full of historical and logical pretension, but, to a great extent, erroneous in fact, by no means coherent in arrangement, and altogether repugnant in its conclusions.

He alleges, that inasmuch as the Articles for the Plantation of Ulster required the undertakers to make leases for certain estates at fixed rents to their tenants, therefore, and by virtue of that provision, the tenants throughout Ulster now enjoy, or ought to enjoy, estates in virtual perpetuity, without lease. He next alleges, that the prosperity of Ulster being due to this tenantright, the rest of Ireland would become as prosperous as Ulster, if it had extended to it (not this system, but) a system of absolute perpetuities, at valuation-rents; and, finally, requires

that the latter system should be established by law throughout Ireland, Ulster included.

This is our statement of Doctor M'Knight's argument, as we collect it from the midst of much irrelevant matter; and, certainly, we have rarely seen more palpable examples of the non sequitur.

We are surprised Dr. M'Knight should have used so much argument to establish the origin of a custom which he desires to supersede, the more particularly as he appears to have been recently made aware of a fact, which disposes in two words of his whole theory as to Ulster tenantright having originated in the Articles of the Plantation, viz., that Antrim, Down, and Monaghan, in all of which tenant-right prevails, were not included in the Articles of Plantation at all.

But, indeed, this theory will not bear the least examination, even in these counties to which the Articles apply. The crown required the undertakers to make leases to certain freeholders. Well, they did so. Who are these freeholders now? The gentry of the country, who, in process of time, have themselves become landlords, and have set their lands as they think proper. Nine out of every ten of the men on the grand panels of these counties represent lessees of undertakers, enjoying the provisions of the Articles, but themselves under no obligation to make sub-leases to their tenants, any more than their tenants are to make sub-inferior leases to their cottiers. This was never the intention of the Articles; it was as little the policy of the crown then, as it would be now, to create a series of mesne landlords, with reversion expectant on reversion, commencing from the first lessee, down to the occupant of half

an acre

"As naturalists pretend a flea

Hath smaller fleas that on it prey;
And these have smaller still to bite 'em,
And so proceed ad infinitum."

It is needless, however, to pursue this absurdity further. The fact that the Articles of Plantation were confined to Donegal, Derry, Tyrone, Fermanagh, Cavan, and Armagh, and that tenant-right exists as much in Down, Antrim, and Monaghan, as in any of these, and that there never

were any articles whatever of this kind applicable to the latter counties, demonstrate that its origin must be looked for in something peculiar to the province of Ulster at large, and not in anything confined, as these Articles were, to the six escheated counties above named.

In fact, the main object of the Plantation was to get rid of the tenant-right of mere occupancy, which is neither more nor less than one form of the old Irish tenure and which has longest survived in Ulster, for the simple reason that Ulster was the province last reduced to English rule. It is, in fact, a remnant of the Brehon code, in which occupation under three successive chieftains gave the right of enjoyment in perpetuity; just as, in Wales, occupation by three successive generations, made the fourth tenant proprietor.

As this is a subject new to the public, we shall go into it at some length. Mr. Eugene Curry, the eminent Irish scholar, was the first to open this view of the question, in a letter to Mr. Peirce Mahony,* published in the Dublin journals in 1845. He says:

"It was competent to any of the occupiers to give his 'place' in the land (ie., to sell his interest) to any other person of the tribe, or to pledge, but not sublet it, without consulting the chief, or the tribe at large; but he could not sell his place' in the lands to a stranger without the consent of these parties. An occupier of this class could not be dispossessed, except upon the commission of some heinous crime, when he was deprived of his patrimony, and cut off from his tribe.-A stranger who took lands from the chief, should he remain on the lands during the succession of three lords, became naturalized, and entitled to all the privileges of a tribeman."-Mr. Curry's Letter, Dublin Evening Post, Sept. 18, 1845.

Mr. Curry has obligingly furnished us with the passage from the Brehon code, respecting the effect of tenancy under three successive lords. The references are to the original MSS. in the Library of Trinity College :

“Tuidmigther caċ niat fo tri

triataib tuigter •i• tuidmither a ferann o neoć o firtuigther rir amach he re ré trir."

B. 3. 18. 230. 4.

Mo roigne rí raid ro bruiġi •I• a mó riż a roiżne is mo raižis firinne na caċ na feraind taitnemaċha cia oca mbiat a tuinide do reir dliżead. Cain bera cia besa aé dližed tuineidi •i• breżnaiġim co cain cia oca mbjat dorer dligead. Geilt fear tri condall •1. ired ir leis in fear bis ac fogeilt in ferainn ac buain a caen duilli de re ré drir a tuinide do bejt aice re sin re sin.” -230. 4.

That is to say:

"All lands are bound, when by three lords they are set-i.e., his lands are bound from a person when he has fairly set them out during the time of three (lords)."

"Oh, my king! oh, Roighne, who honoureth Truth, all the delightful lands, whose shall be their possession according to Law? I fairly adjudge who shall have them according to law. It (the land) shall belong to the man who grazes it, who takes off its sweet herbage, during the time of three (lords), he having its possession during that term."

With the other authorities from which Mr. Curry formed his opinion, as above given, we are unacquainted; but we apprehend his conclusions are chiefly drawn from the tradition of the country. Reverting, however, to the mode of acquiring inheritance by occupancy, we shall next cite the analogous provision of the Welch law. We now draw our information from the "Leges Wallica," published by the Record Commissioners for England.

They

had been already published, and learnedly enough annotated by Wotton, just as the parliamentary writs had been by Prynne; but, while it has not been deemed expedient to continue the publication of our original records, the English Commissioners have spent a sum greater than would have completed the unfinished Irish series, in re

writs, and ancient British constitutions. The provision we refer to, respecting Dadenhudd, or proprietorship, is c. 30, s. 8, 9, of the Gwentian Code, of which it is only necessary here to cite the translation, as any one may consult the original Welch in the Commissioners' publication:

“Dadenhudd is the tilling by a person of land tilled by his father before him. In the fourth degree, a person becomes a proprietor-his father, his grandfa ther, and his great-grandfather, and he himself the fourth. After he becomes a proprietor, his title does not become extinguished until the ninth (generation), if they be without their right until the ninth."-Leges Wallica, p. 368.

This ancient British custom, we have no doubt, is the ultimate origin of copyhold tenure in England; and we believe it exists to this day, in a modified form, in parts of Cumberland.

The rents payable in respect of these possessions were fixed, and could not be increased. The extra charges of coyne, livery, cuddies, &c., were considered usurpations, although generally levied both by lay and clerical lords. The "Book of Rights," recently published by the Celtic Society-another of Mr. O'Donovan's valuable contributions to Irish literature-furnishes a very early and explicit declaration of the Brehon law on this subject

"The tribute and the payment must be the same [at all times], without any addition for increased wealthiness, without any deficiency for impoverishment, unless in case of a destruction of the tribe, a plague, a famine, or mortalityto be levied, be it great or be it little, every year."-Leathair na G-ceart, p. 185.

The pleadings in the early Chancery cause, in which Teige O'Doyne was plaintiff, and Charles O'Doyne, defendant, are to the same purport, and disclose the Irish custom very fully. O'Doyne claimed out of Iregan, besides his annual rents, and heriots on the death of each caun-finne, various duties and services which are enumerated in an inquisition stated in the pleadings, taken at Maryborough, before the then going judges of assize, by which it was found that the claim

an usurpation, and that O'Doyne had title only to his ancient reserved payments in the nature of a rent-seck. The king, however, affected to pass all by his letters-patent, which remain enrolled, and exhibit a curious picture of the times, with their meathers of butter, and crannocks of oats, and services-hooks, i. e., reaping-hooks, at harvest, &c.

The caun-finne here mentioned was the head of each family of tenants, where the lands were held, as was generally the case, by all the members of a family in common. The Case of Irish Customs, reported by Sir John Davis, states the office, and mode of electing the caun-finne, more particularly.

That this was the sort of tenure which prevailed throughout Ulster, up to the time of the Plantation, appears by the Grand Inquisition of Ülster, printed in the Appendix to the "Calendary of Inquisitions for Ulster," one of the two volumes completed by the Irish Record Commissioners. This inquisition has reference to the church lands; but as the prelates held these according to the Irish custom, the evidence is applicable to all. We shall take the finding as to the see of Armagh, as the first that presents itself. After reciting that the commissioners were directed, among other things, to distinguish the ecclesiastical lands from the lands of the crown, the finding proceeds as follows:

"And further the said jurors doe uppon their oathes say and present that certain septs and families of the Irishrie hereafter named, have, tyme out of mynde, possessed and inherited, accordinge to the Irish custom, certain towns and parcells of land, hereafter specified, &c. &c. Yielding unto the Archbishoppe of Ardmagh for the tyme beinge, in right of his archbishoppricke, onely the rents and dueties ensuing, viz. [And so proceeds to enumerate the lands, and septs possessing them, and the rents thereout respectively payable.] And further the said jurors doe upon their oaths say and present that the Lord Archbishopp of Ardmagh for the tyme beinge could not att any tyme, att his will and pleasure, remove the above-named septs or families, or any of them, nor any of their ancestors, out of their said possessions or freeholds aforesaid."

The inquisition then proceeds, after

some other findings, to find that the archbishop was entitled to various other rents issuing out of divers other lands held, beyond memory of man, by certain Irish septs, and that the archbishop could not at any time dispossess or remove the said septs, or their ancestors, or any of them, out of the said lands, at his pleasure; and so with respect to various other lands belonging to this and other sees, whence it appears plainly that the tenure by the Irish custom was analogous to our tenure in fee-farm or by copyhold.

Now, the main object of the Plantation of Ulster, was, to substitute British Protestants for the Roman Catholic natives, and feudal tenures for the customary tenure, without lease of the Brehon law; to substitute feefarms and rents incident to reversions for the native rents seck, which left the landlord no effectual control over his estate. But to effect this, it was necessary to expel the native population, a proceeding both cruel and difficult to perform; for these poor people, having no other place to betake themselves to, were willing to pay any rent that could, by the utmost selfdenial, be extracted from the landbut they would not accept of British tenures. Those who had set their hearts on exterminating Irishmen out of the plantation, and who foresaw the possibility of such events as afterwards, in 1641, confirmed their apprehensions, complained that the British were discouraged, particularly, by the London Companies, who

"Finding the natives willing to overgive rather than remove, and that they could not reap half the profit by the British which they could do by the Irish, whom they use at their pleasure, never looked at the reasons which induced the natives to give more than indeed they could well raise, their assured hope that time might, by rebellion, relieve them of their heavy landlords, whom, in the meantime, they were content to suffer under, though to their utter impoverishing and undoing, rather than not have a footing to entertain their expected

For your majesty's

lords. greatest loss consists in the filling of the country with Irish, at whose mercy the few English lie; for they may at pleasure surprise their houses, cut their throats, and possess their arms."

It is a singular fact that one of the most urgent intercessors for the Irish, who wrote repeated letters on their behalf, praying that they might not be expelled, was Sir Tristram, the progenitor of the Beresfords.

Great

numbers of them accordingly remained, and wherever they remained, retained their traditionary contempt for British tenure

"Mac Swyne Banagh," says Pynnar, writing in 1618, "has two thousand acres; he hath made no estates, for his tenants will have no longer time than from year to year." "Tirlogh O'Boyle hath two thousand acres; he hath made no estates, and all his tenants do plough after the Irish manner." "Donnell Mac Swyne Farne hath two thousand acres; his tenants have no estates, but from three years to three years."

But the records by which the extent of Irish inhabitancy, and of Irish rejection of British tenures principally appears, are the rolls of inquisitions taken between the years 1625 and 1639, finding in what respects the dif ferent undertakers had violated the terms of their patents. The main provision in these patents was, that the patentees would not alien or demise to mere Irish. As to the provision of the Articles about making leases, there was nothing of that kind in any of the patents either expressed or referred to. The undertakers became bound to the performance of the Articles of Plantation by crown-bonds, before the patentees passed to them. On these bonds they might have been sued; but no breach of any condition of the bond, not included in the instrument of grant itself, could ever have defeated the estate passed by the patent. In or der, however, to see what it was that these Ulster patentees really were bound to do, we subjoin the condition