In 1847 James Devery, agent on Frederick Ponsonby’s estate was described as ‘beloved by the tenantry, a thing rare in Ireland in the instance of any agent’ (p. 13). This opening quotation in a long overdue scholarly study of land agents in Ireland reveals an accepted contemporary notion of bitter relations between land agents and tenants. Social memory similarly recalls antagonism resulting in an often-unchallenged stereotypical negative portrayal of land agents.

Ciaran Reilly’s excellent and important study of the topic in The Irish land agent: the case of King’s County, 1830–1860 sets out ‘to test the historical validity of their representation in social memory’ (p. 23) over a pivotal thirty-year period. Consequently, reference is made to the introduction of the National Board of Education 1831 (incorrectly referred to as the National School Act 1831, p. 77), the 1832 Reform Act (incorrectly dated 1837, p. 80), and the Encumbered Estates Courts (referred throughout as Incumbered). The archivally dense study of King’s County (Offaly) examines approximately 100 land agents, contains three maps and eleven illustrations from local history societies. One of the many strengths of the publication is the author’s use of local history sources. Several typos in the text and footnotes occur, including ‘importation of Ayrshire cattle and other breeds ?????’ (author’s question marks, p. 87) and ‘It may seem strong [strange?] then’ (p. 103). The manuscript record of footnote 40 is incomplete (DP, D/671/c/9/???) (author’s question marks, p. 90). However, these detract little from the overall study.

In order to illustrate how agents were represented in social memory, the author uses examples from poetry, fiction, drama, folklore, Irish traditional music, and ballads. Typically agents emerge as ‘being rapacious, dishonest and in general the villains of the Irish countryside’ (p. 9). The author believes that part of their ‘later representation in Irish social memory’ was due to the ‘inactivity’ of many agents during the Famine (p. 166). He rightly argues that ‘collectively they had no method, or at times even the will, to act in unison’ (p. 160). However, a footnote (23) reveals that the will for collective action existed among agents during the tithe controversy of the 1830s (p. 166). Conversely, their activity also influenced their negative immortalization. The murder of William Ross Manifold in 1852 occurred after he had secured ejectment proceedings against a number of tenants (p. 9). In reference to the murder of another agent called Pyke the author states ‘Once again the motivation for the crime can be traced to the agent’s estate management policy’ (p. 138). Pyke’s predecessor John Corcoran was reinstated after Pyke’s murder although the landlord thought Corcoran ‘too lenient’ (p. 137). Corcoran retained his popularity despite the policies he ‘implemented’ (p. 167). Between 1838 and 1852 four landlords and seven agents were murdered in King’s County (p. 135).

Agents occupied a highly important position in the hierarchical estate management system, acting as the landlord’s representative amongst the tenantry. Consequently it is not always apparent whose policy they were actually implementing – their own or the landlord’s, a matter which may have been teased out more, especially in the conclusion. Nevertheless, the author does concede that ‘Many were simply restricted or dictated in their policies by their employers’ financial position’ (p. 163). In the final chapter, the author concludes that within King’s County, ‘both good and bad’ agents operated (p. 167). Care must be taken when using the simplistic binary of ‘good’ versus ‘bad’ for classification purposes. The subjectivity of such terminology is apparent when perspective is considered; a ‘good’ agent from a tenant’s perspective may grant abatements, while a ‘bad’ agent in the eyes of the landlord fails to collect all rents due. Reilly also asserts that ‘findings for King’s County more-or-less substantiate Eric Richards’s argument for the Victorian English case that “some agents had the grace and tact of the landlord” while others “were of a rougher breed”’ (p. 161). This comment implies, incorrectly of course, that all landlords had tact.

The glowing account of Ponsonby’s agent Devery in 1847 referred to at the beginning of the review was contained in a report for Earl Fitzwilliam. Two later identical footnotes clarify that the report was commissioned by Ponsonby who sold his estate to Fitzwilliam the same year (pp 149, 161). A year later in 1848 under the new landlord Fitzwilliam, Devery –the man ‘beloved of the tenantry’ – was ‘attacked and robbed of three stone of flour, oats and a donkey’ and his wife was assaulted (p. 142), an unfortunate occurrence which raises more questions in relation to the formulation of estate policy. Reilly’s highly commendable and in-depth study of land agents will prove compulsory reading for all with an interest in the topic.