Big Houses

The decline of the Big Houses came during the first half of the 19^th century. The difficult years coming before and after the Famine. Some who were an authority on the period anticipated and envisaged with some accuracy the economic collapse of the gentry and the eventual demise of the Big House. Some have traced the decline to the 1860’s or 1870’s, with the 1880’s seeing the twilight era of the Irish country house. One expert could see in the 1850’s the writing on the demesne wall. He did not see the problems arising during the famine but rather coming at the end of the Napoleonic War with the collapse of artificially inflated wartime agricultural prices which had made expensive leases sustainable. One widow on her way to visit her husband’s grave lamented not of the decaying Big House but of its ‘magnificent outhouses’, that had once bustled with life. They were now still and empty and she regretted the ruined splendour of the avenue which had been lined with oak trees cut down for ready money. The concern was with poor estate management. The estate owners did not get involved in business rather they depended on the land for an income. These hereditary landowners benefited from the fact that servants and hospitality cost less than in England with the result that more money was spent on luxury and show. In their eagerness to make their mark on the countryside and to impress their neighbours, some land owners improved their houses or built new ones on a grander scale than was necessary or affordable.

        Some owners entertained with a reckless lavishness that they could ill afford, even when their poorly maintained buildings were falling around them. One Landlord was described by his own daughter as being, ‘Hasty in temper, extravagant in habits, fond of play, horses, wine, and revelry, inattentive to business, improvident in expenditure”. In one case due to the extravagance of the owner, the estate had a mortgage of £250,000. Naturally the interest on this amount had a crippling effect on the property. Without investment and improvements to the land its oppressed and demoralized tenants could pay no more in rent and so the property went into decline. In another family, the fortunes initially represented by a substantial income from rent of £10,000 annually, were dissipated through lavish and ostentatious hospitality, careless accounting and costly absenteeism and gambling in London and Paris. In many cases only wealthy marriages, whereby the bride brought a substantial dowry into the estate saved the family fortunes from utter ruin. There was evidence that despite dwindling rentals and leaking roofs the eighteenth-century tradition of extravagant excess and reckless mismanagement continued for years, often compounded by ruinously expensive indulgences such as politics and horse- racing. One big house family member plunged himself even more deeply into debt when he stood for parliament in the government interest, unsuccessfully, and had to pay heavily for the extensive bribery, prolonged and widespread drunkenness associated with the election. He had inherited an already encumbered estate and proceeded to make matters worse because of his passion for the turf and a tendency to back the wrong horses. Heavy losses obliged him to sell more than half of his estate. The pervasive inefficiency of the overstaffed household, the unreasonable rent regime, demoralized and cheating servants and tenants, unscrupulous mendicants, ruinous and some times dishonest horse-racing compound the standard themes of immoral extravagance, slow horse and fast women. The moral and economic bankruptcy of the family which inevitably results stands for the inevitable political bankruptcy of the country as currently administered.