Returning British land holdings in Ireland to the state

Macu17ab

Hi folks,

As many of you may be aware, there are still a lot of large land-holdings belonging to British aristocrats which have held this lands in Irelands for hundreds of years to date. These include estates like Slane Castle, and Powerscourt Gardens. During the formation of our Free State Government, the “Land Act” was implemented and offered these British land lords to purchase the land.

Considering Ireland’s independent economy at this time was virtually non-existent, and improving relations with the British elite was in our best interest - the purchases of the land act were surely offered from a position of extreme disadvantage on the Irish state’s behalf.

Should the Irish state offer/enforce, today, a compensation to these modern-day aristocrats, where the land is reclaimed for the Irish state? The money gained from these sites like entry fees for tours, gigs, events etc could be used towards Irish culture projects and the establishment of modern gaeltachts where our language could be given a chance to thrive in future generations.

Just a thought. You can see an article below from 2016 which can give you an idea of the current “Anglo-Irish” land holdings in Ireland today:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/irish-news/anglo-irish-lords-of-the-manor-cling-on-to-their-big-estates-35074914.html

Del.Monte

Why should these private landowners be forced to give up their property anymore than any other private property owner? Another thread better suited to AH.

Allinall

I own property in the UK.

Should they be allowed take it off me?

CrabRevolution

They legally own the property, no matter how it was obtained centuries ago. The only way to obtain it would be via CPO which would be easily fought unless the government showed that it planned to build a motorway through every single property and had no other choice but to CPO.

A government looking up someone's family tree and deciding they aren't entitled to hold on to their property based on their distant ancestry would fail just about every human rights test going and be run out of court. The article you linked even mentions one family owning some land for 800 years....

It's also good practice to ask yourself "Will this make us resemble Zimbabwe" before doing....well anything to be honest. If the answer is yes, you don't do it.

Macu17ab

@CrabRevolution - The Zimbabwe question gave me a chuckle, I'll keep that one in mind in the future. As for the previous two replies, the means in which the land was aquired in the Irish case is drastically different to how any Irish person may have obtained land in the UK. So you could try looking at it from a national interest perspective as oppossed to a private ownership persepctive. I'm all for having the current owners compensated, and I don't consider this to be a normal or easy concept to navigate. It is an outlandish idea, but I believe it is one that could be fleshed out more. Quite frankly, I'm sure a lot of Irish people would agree that if we took the land back ten times over, it would not be reparation enough for the wealth the UK siphoned from Ireland and the damage done to our unique Gaelic culture.

Notmything

After we take the land back from the British who is next?
My Polish neighbours have a grand house. They bought it at a distressed properties auction, taking houses off Irish people.

But, regarding the topic at hand, is there evidence to say said properties are being abused/neglected by their owners? that they would be better off in state ownership and state ownership is not always the best outcome.

Macu17ab

Notmything wrote: »

After we take the land back from the British who is next?
My Polish neighbours have a grand house. They bought it at a distressed properties auction, taking houses off Irish people.

But, regarding the topic at hand, is there evidence to say said properties are being abused/neglected by their owners? that they would be better off in state ownership and state ownership is not always the best outcome.

That would not have even appeared on my radar - I am only really thinking about lands that would have been taken during the occupation, and held on to as a result of the Land Act where we weren't in a strong position to barterfor them. We owe our independance to some extraordinary people who walked this Earth barely 100 years ago, who, I would think, would not have envisaged allowing the Nobility who oppressed Ireland's freedom to retain their estates at a relatively meagre cost. I'm not trying to tickle anyone's patriotic heartstrings here, but in my eyes if the same people are occupying the British symbols of wealth and racial superiority to date - was Ireland ever really recalimed? (excluding the NI question).

pgj2015

How far back do you go though? My Neighbours have a Norman surname and have a big farm, should their land be taken from them as well?

mdudy

Macu17ab wrote: »

It is an outlandish idea

Correct.

Notmything

Macu17ab wrote: »

That would not have even appeared on my radar - I am only really thinking about lands that would have been taken during the occupation, and held on to as a result of the Land Act where we weren't in a strong position to barterfor them. We owe our independance to some extraordinary people who walked this Earth barely 100 years ago, who, I would think, would not have envisaged allowing the Nobility who oppressed Ireland's freedom to retain their estates at a relatively meagre cost. I'm not trying to tickle anyone's patriotic heartstrings here, but in my eyes if the same people are occupying the British symbols of wealth and racial superiority to date - was Ireland ever really recalimed? (excluding the NI question).

So you want to reclaim the lands taken by the English. Would that be enough? The system of counties is an English system composed on us 800 years ago or so. How can we truly reclaim our country if we continue to use an English county system?

two wheels good

As an aside:
I suggest it's best to resolve links before posting. To help reader's avoid Google's tracking and profiling algorithms. Thanks.

Del.Monte

Notmything wrote: »

So you want to reclaim the lands taken by the English. Would that be enough? The system of counties is an English system composed on us 800 years ago or so. How can we truly reclaim our country if we continue to use an English county system?

Counties were a Norman thing not English. I think the British and Irish governments should look to the French for war reparations due to the their invasions of our two countries in 1066 and 1170 respectively.

Notmything

Del.Monte wrote: »

Counties were a Norman thing not English. I think the British and Irish governments should look to the French for war reparations due to the their invasions of our two countries in 1066 and 1170 respectively.

These guys say Anglo-Norman but I'm slightly ashamed to say it's an area of Irish history I know very little about so I'll happily accept your correction.

Ipso

I’m going to take back what the bell beakers took.

pinkypinky

I can't believe this is a legitimate question.

Many of the people mentioned in that old article are Irish citizens. So what if several hundred years ago they had English ancestors.

Garech Browne couldn't have been more Irish - founding Claddagh Records...big promoter of the Chieftains.

The State doesn't have the money to buy these old houses and maintain them either.

Tordelback

All land was taken from the only true native Irish, the Mesolithic people who settled the uninhabited post-glacial island. The State should pay all blow-in landowners a few quid and tell them to get lost.

Congratulations OP, you've reinvented communism. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, but itcmay not have been what you were aiming for. Now if you'll excuse me I have to check on my fishtraps, and these hares aren't going to skin themselves.

Del.Monte

There's still quite a few of those Mesolithic types around so they can't all have been wiped out.

Macu17ab

Del.Monte wrote: »

There's still quite a few of those Mesolithic types around so they can't all have been wiped out.

LOL.

Ah sure lads, my mind has not changed on the matter, but it'd be a boring auld world if we agreed on everything!

whisky_galore

So which is it OP, do purchase these estates with shirtbuttons, because that's the way the economy is going or do we just chase them out at gunpoint, a good old fashioned ethnic cleansing?

Honestly, the quality of threads in H&H has gone down the toilet.

Macu17ab

whisky_galore wrote: »

So which is it OP, do purchase these estates with shirtbuttons, because that's the way the economy is going or do we just chase them out at gunpoint, a good old fashioned ethnic cleansing?

Honestly, the quality of threads in H&H has gone down the toilet.

I think the shirtbuttons would be a good and fair trade Whisky - Sorry the thread is not to your linear taste!

Guy:Incognito

Setting aside everything else. Lets say hypothetically they all decided they wanted to up and sell, what would it cost the country? Any got a rough idea of the value of Slane castle and its land (and it turn any others people want to list)?

A lot to be said for planting these large estates in native woodland and encourage re-release of wildlife


Likes of book of lismore should never been left leave the country either,these big estates dont offer anything to state in there present form

We should introduce a 1st refusal law,where if/when these estates ever come up for sale,the state has first refusal on buying them

Del.Monte

Deleted User wrote: »

A lot to be said for planting these large estates in native woodland and encourage re-release of wildlife


Likes of book of lismore should never been left leave the country either,these big estates dont offer anything to state in there present form

We should introduce a 1st refusal law,where if/when these estates ever come up for sale,the state has first refusal on buying them

What do you think these estates are planted in? Most of them are oases for wildlife without the dead hand of the State get involved. When private developers are involved you get hotels, golf courses, holiday chalets etc. This thread continues to go downhill and I didn't think that was possible.



Where's CDfm when you need him - gone since 2014 and sorely missed on this forum.

Del.Monte

Del.Monte wrote: »

What do you think these estates are planted in? Most of them are oases for wildlife without the dead hand of the State get involved. When private developers are involved you get hotels, golf courses, holiday chalets etc. This thread continues to go downhill and I didn't think that was possible.



Where's CDfm when you need him - gone since 2014 and sorely missed on this forum.

Plant the entirety of them?

Any i see about arent fully planted (curraghmore/mt congrove etc),possibly look into this imo.....it would do all sorts of greatness for wildlife and native trees here and not result in usual nuclear wasteland type sites,that accomy commerial timber


CDfm is on the r/irishhistory.....good guy that lad

purplepanda

The Wyndman Acts & previous legislation were the start of land distribution in Ireland which was implemented alongside other reforms to
"kill Home Rule with kindness" . The Irish Free State was just continuing the land reform process started earlier, most of it was already done by that period.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Acts_(Ireland)#:~:text=This%20was%20the%20basis%20of,'Brien%20orchestrated%20through%20parliament..&text=The%20Acts%20provided%20Irish%20tenant,rest%20of%20the%20United%20Kingdom.

It's actually England & in particular Scotland that needs a modern equivalent of the Ireland land Acts.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/mar/20/report-calls-for-reform-of-unhealthy-land-ownership-in-scotland

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/england-land-ownership-royals-middle-ages-a8878931.html

A few old families in these massive old houses, that usually need constant expensive maintenance, with heritage laws to prevent any serious modernisation.

The government cost of taking over these properties would be better spent elsewhere on many historical sites that need real invesment.

Marcusm

Macu17ab wrote: »

Hi folks,

As many of you may be aware, there are still a lot of large land-holdings belonging to British aristocrats which have held this lands in Irelands for hundreds of years to date. These include estates like Slane Castle, and Powerscourt Gardens. During the formation of our Free State Government, the “Land Act” was implemented and offered these British land lords to purchase the land.

Considering Ireland’s independent economy at this time was virtually non-existent, and improving relations with the British elite was in our best interest - the purchases of the land act were surely offered from a position of extreme disadvantage on the Irish state’s behalf.

Should the Irish state offer/enforce, today, a compensation to these modern-day aristocrats, where the land is reclaimed for the Irish state? The money gained from these sites like entry fees for tours, gigs, events etc could be used towards Irish culture projects and the establishment of modern gaeltachts where our language could be given a chance to thrive in future generations.

Just a thought. You can see an article below from 2016 which can give you an idea of the current “Anglo-Irish” land holdings in Ireland today:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/irish-news/anglo-irish-lords-of-the-manor-cling-on-to-their-big-estates-35074914.html

The Conynghams who own Slane Castle live there; should they be evicted. The Slazenger’s own Powerscourt since 1961. Have you perhaps chosen the wrong targets?

Sultan_of_Ping

It's somewhat funny that in Politics there is a thread where a poster has suggested, not that unreasonably, that someone who has been born in Ireland, and who's family can trace their presence here through four generations should be regarded as Irish.

But, this thread seems to be predicated on the idea that there are people who can trace their family's presence here back even further, but they are not Irish? Or just not Irish enough for the OP's taste?

paul71

That article claims among other ridiculous assertions things that the Guinness family is somehow British Aristocracy. They are 17th century merchant/brewers from Celbridge in Co. Kildare and never had any kind of Aristocratic connection, in all probability they would be Irish Gael descent converted to church of Ireland in 16th or 17th century. Similarly, the Plunkets in Meath had been in Ireland so long prior to the reformation that their DNA is probably 25% Norman / 75% Gaelic Aristocracy.

Its a simple pile of lazy rubbish targeted at lazy ultra nationalists seeking false outrage.

As daft as this idea is, this was an activity that was pursued by the Land Commission, probably one of the most divisive institutions ever to exist in this country, which up unwil WW1, was still seizing land from large farmers and turning it into uneconomic smaller farms.

The practice is part of the reason why Irish farms are noticeably smaller than our counterparts in the UK and mainland Europe. It was a disastrous policy. My own Grandad got into a dispute with the Land Commission and local neighbours because he had no male siblings and only one infant son, to share his farm (which wasn't even some big estate), and it ended up in the High Court. Ridiculous carry-on.

Some people were big fans of that kind of land seizure though, so the OP's comments aren't totally removed from fairly recent agricultural policy.

paul71

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

As daft as this idea is, this was an activity that was pursued by the Land Commission, probably one of the most divisive institutions ever to exist in this country, which up unwil WW1, was still seizing land from large farmers and turning it into uneconomic smaller farms.

The practice is part of the reason why Irish farms are noticeably smaller than our counterparts in the UK and mainland Europe. It was a disastrous policy. My own Grandad got into a dispute with the Land Commission and local neighbours because he had no male siblings and only one infant son, to share his farm (which wasn't even some big estate), and it ended up in the High Court. Ridiculous carry-on.

Some people were big fans of that kind of land seizure though, so the OP's comments aren't totally removed from fairly recent agricultural policy.

The land commission was an institution inherited by the Free state and subsequently the republic from the British administration. It was a required land reform although in practice it was turned into a political tool, particularly by Fianna Fail. However it was not a simple theft of land, the landowners were compensated for what was often unprofitable land as by the 1880s rent was in most cases simply not being paid.
The whole land commission ea is fascinating as it had all kinds of social consequences. I even remember my Grandfather saying something that I often heard repeated, "free land in Meath, unless you are from Meath".


Ps. There was still land commisssion holdings been given out as late as the 1980s.

paul71

paul71 wrote: »

The land commission was an institution inherited by the Free state and subsequently the republic from the British administration. It was a required land reform although in practice it was turned into a political tool, particularly by Fianna Fail. However it was not a simple theft of land, the landowners were compensated for what was often unprofitable land as by the 1880s rent was in most cases simply not being paid.
The whole land commission ea is fascinating as it had all kinds of social consequences. I even remember my Grandfather saying something that I often heard repeated, "free land in Meath, unless you are from Meath".


Ps. There was still land commisssion holdings been given out as late as the 1980s.

I know they were compensated, but agricultural land was cheap back in the 1930s and 1940s, and seizing part of a farm could make it uneconomical -- the majority of the seized land was almost certainly uneconomical, and if they haven't already been leased or bought back by larger farmers, or even the original owners, they're probably still being farmed in a way that is just not sustainable. Many of the guys who were involved with beef-plant protests last year are operating exactly these kinds of smallholdings and wondering why they cannot make a living.

I don't take issue with the 19th century redistribution of land, because Land Law at that time had massive injustices, and instability for tenants. But by the 1900s, most of the big estates had been broken up, and almost any tenant had had the opportunity to buy-out their lease. After independence, the pendulum swung too far in the opposite direction, and that is when the really egregious break-ups began. It even turned violent on occasion, but the Land Commission can't be blamed for that.

From Independence until the mid-century, there was a determined policy to divide farms in a way that aimed to keep as many people on the land as possible, whatever the consequences.

Compulsory tillage orders were also introduced, not really because there was a shortage of corn, but because it was deemed that medium or large farms weren't employing enough labourers. If you read the Dail debates at the time, you'll find insinuations that these farmers were lacking loyalty to the State, but rather had more loyalty to the British crown.

Nobody wants to portray these farmers as victims, or anything like that, just pointing out that there was a longstanding tradition of seizing land in this country for political reasons, with prejudicial undertones exactly like those expressed by the OP.

neris

The mention of the Revelstokes and lambay is ridiculous in that article. They bought that island in the 1900s from the Talbot's in Malahide