Griffiths Valuation of Ireland

[audbr]

Can any body please give me some advice about the Griffiths Valuation of Ireland?

My understanding is that the Griffiths valuation contains:
The name of the land owner and
The name of the person who leased the land off the landowner.

Was their a third level of person who subleased land and/or a house from the person named in the Griffiths Valuation as having leased the land off the landowner? This third level person would not be named in the Griffiths valuation.

Thanks in anticipation of your advice.
Regards
Brian

[Sinann]

This is a very good article explaining the records http://www.leitrim-roscommon.com/GRIFFITH/Griffiths.PDF

I think in the case you're asking about you will have the Landlord, the lease holder as a.
And anyone subleasing form him as b. c. To see this you need to look at the image of the original books

[taramcdsmall]

There are a HUGE amount of people whom aren't on the GV !

GV was all about those whom were responsible for paying rents on land OR property.

Given the 'trickle down' effect on whom exactly paid rents adds up to a lot of missing people

ie those in tenements in Dublin aren't included.

A lot of people are under the presumption that the GV is like a census but it is far from it.

It's why when someone is looking for help with their tree, and the people in question were alive around the mid 1850's; one of the first questions I ask is what was their or their father's occupation.

If they were a farmer it's likely they will be on the GV BUT if they were a labourer or tradesman it will be trickier.

Tara

[Elwyn Soutter]

Can any body please give me some advice about the Griffiths Valuation of Ireland?

My understanding is that the Griffiths valuation contains:
The name of the land owner and
The name of the person who leased the land off the landowner.

Was their a third level of person who subleased land and/or a house from the person named in the Griffiths Valuation as having leased the land off the landowner? This third level person would not be named in the Griffiths valuation.

Thanks in anticipation of your advice.
Regards
Brian

All you get in Griffiths is the tenant and their immediate superior landlord (or where someone owned their property it usually says “in fee”.) But there were often many superior landlords. The Marquis of Donegal got into financial difficulties and discovered that in some cases he had up to 8 or 9 intermediate landlords between  himself and the lowest tenant. He blamed their percentage fees for depriving him of a proper income, though I suspect his own recklessness was the real reason.

[conahy calling]

Looking at Swiftsheath townland,  Barony - Fassadinin,  Union - Kilkenny,  Parish - Coolcraheen, there are a few  examples of subtenants, or so it seems to me.
Godwin Swift is the landlord. 
 Andrew Lalor, tenant of G. Swift, has two subtenants, John Buggy and Michael Kavanagh.  Their Map refs are       1       1a      2

Further examples  are Joseph Brennan whose subtenant is John Grace
                                   Martin Farrell       "            "            John Dunne

http://www.askaboutireland.ie/griffith-valuation/

[audbr]

Many Thanks to Sinann, Tara, Elwyn and Conahy,

 Many thanks for your replies. You have confirmed what I was beginning to believe; that absence from the Griffiths Valuation, does not mean absence from a Rural Townland.

I also found the link from Sinnann particularily educational and will cause me to relook at what I have taken from the Griffiths valuation

Regards
brian

[california dreamin]

Hi All

Can I just add it was not my understanding that in the case of an a,b,c, entry that  b & c were subtennants of a.
Here is my example:
When cottages were part of a farm, the farmhouse was labelled "a" and the cottages "b", "c", and so on.   When a group of tenants is bracketed together, lettered "a", "b" and so on, this would denote a "rundale" holding, where by the tenants shared the land and rent often, even if they had different surnames, they might be descendants of a single original tenant. This is the case with my family.  On Griffiths they are 'bracketed' together and hence in a rundale.

CD

[Sinann]

Hi All

Can I just add it was not my understanding that in the case of an a,b,c, entry that  b & c were subtennants of a.
Here is my example:
When cottages were part of a farm, the farmhouse was labelled "a" and the cottages "b", "c", and so on.   When a group of tenants is bracketed together, lettered "a", "b" and so on, this would denote a "rundale" holding, where by the tenants shared the land and rent often, even if they had different surnames, they might be descendants of a single original tenant. This is the case with my family.  On Griffiths they are 'bracketed' together and hence in a rundale.

CD

This is often the case but sometimes you will see a tenant also listed in the landlord column.
As on page 9 in the link above in Corryrourke
Patrick Smyth is Richard Fox's tenant
Mary Sheridan is Patrick Smyth's tenant.
She has a house and small garden on his land.

[california dreamin]

Hi ,
Yes, this example you have given is slightly different than my example.  But actually a really good one for the original poster audbr.  If you look at this example you will see that Patrick Smyth leases the land only from Richard Fox. Mary Sheridan has a ‘ house’ and garden.  We would interpret ‘house’ loosely because if you look across at her valuation you will see it says  ‘5’(shillings). Mary would be considered a ‘cottier’.  Perhaps working the land for Patrick Smyth?. Cottiers had no lease and were at the mercy of their immediate landlord.  I understand that a cottier would rent an average of five acres of land (no more or they would need to pay more money rent) and often had to supplement their livelihood. Their homes could be made of local stone or turf and with some sort of thatch for a roof.  The dwelling could not be over a certain height or the rent was raised.  There will be lots of information on the web about cottiers. This may be the third level of person that aubr refers to. 
The article that Siann posted really is a good one (I have used another one for years but this one maybe just be that bit better!) and really should help aubr. Also, about page 10 Siann's article discusses 'unnamed occupiers' which might be particularly appropriate.

Kind regards
CD
PS – Siann, I see you are researching Donnelly’s where are your family from?