Katherine,
No. Someone in the army would not have acquired land that way in the 18th &
19th centuries. It did happen in the 17th century, but by the 1700s all the
land was already owned by someone, and there was no spare land to give out even
if they had wanted to. Shortage of spare land in Ireland was one of the many
factors behind peoples decision to migrate from Ireland in the 1700s and later.
The father did often leave his land to a son. Frequently the eldest but not
always. I have seen plenty of exceptions. Most farms were too small to split,
so the expectation was that it would all go to one son, and the others would
have to make their own way in the world. Thus often leading to emigration.
Few farmers actually owned their land. It was normally leased. The big
landowners (who rarely, if ever, farmed themselves) preferred rental income to
the capital raised from selling. This meant that a farmer might work a farm
for 30 years, gradually improving it and increasing it’s value, only to find
that the rent increased because of his own efforts. A bit galling and another
reason why folk emigrated to places where there was land available with the
freehold. When a farmer left the farm to a son in Ireland, what he was leaving
was the value of the unexpired portion of the lease plus all the seed, tools,
animals, crops in the ground etc. But only very rarely did he have outright
ownership of the land itself. As the 1800s progressed, various changes were
made to leasehold law, which meant that provided you paid your rent, a farmer
could expect to stay on the property indefinitely. The landlord had to renew,
and there were some caps on rent increases. So tenure was almost guaranteed
(subject to rent being paid) but not outright ownership.
Where someone did have outright ownership of property, in Griffiths Valuation
it normally appears as “in fee.” Or occasionally as “free” though this latter
term tended to refer to someone with squatters rights for typically a small
cottage or a bit of bog, rather than a whole farm.
In the aristocracy it was common for the eldest son to inherit the estate, and
for younger sons to join the army or navy or become Ministers. The average
farmer in Tyrone wasn’t aristocracy. And even in the aristocracy military
service didn’t result in being granted land. You might get a pension at the end
of service but not land.
Elwyn
On Monday, 18 January 2021, 23:53:01 GMT, Katherine Q via CoTyroneList
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hello Listers,
I have a 3 part question, referring to County Tyrone in the late 18th - early
19th century:
1. Does anybody know if it was a common practice for Irish members of the
British Royal Army/Military to be given incentives such as land for their
service?
2. Was it a common practice for the oldest son to inherit all of the land that
a father owned, if the father owned land?
And 3. If 1 and 2 are so, did that make it more common for younger sons who
would not inherit land to join the military in order to get land?
Thanks for any help you can provide,
Katherine Quigley
=================================
Send a Message to the List - [email protected]
List Archive -
https://list.cotyroneireland.com/empathy/list/cotyronelist.list.cotyroneireland.com
Join the list by sending an email to -
[email protected]
To receive the Digest version, send an email to -
[email protected]
Unsubscribe by sending an email to -
[email protected]
=================================
=================================
Send a Message to the List - [email protected]
List Archive -
https://list.cotyroneireland.com/empathy/list/cotyronelist.list.cotyroneireland.com
Join the list by sending an email to -
[email protected]
To receive the Digest version, send an email to -
[email protected]
Unsubscribe by sending an email to -
[email protected]
=================================
