Saga - 1988, Blaðsíða 107

SAMBÚÐ LANDSDROTTNA OG LEIGULIÐA
105
ur, the two govemors, amtmenn, and five sheriffs, sýslumenn. On behalf of the
authorities in Denmark there were the two collegia in Copenhagen administ-
ering Icelandic affairs, the rentekammer and the kanselli, and a committee of
prominent politicians and businessmen reviewing legislation on Iceland's
trade. Most of those untapped sources have not been published, but they of-
fer new information and valuable insight into this little known subject.
In a letter to the rentekammer in 1829, the governor-general, P. F. Hoppe,
accused landlords of not treating their tenants well and of ignoing land-ten-
ure law, which had been set up in 1705 to protect tenants against landlords'
abuse. Hoppe implied, that being landowners themselves, the officials failed
to execute the law out of self-interest. Hoppe urged the govemment to tig-
hten the law and, especially, implement its prescription that tenants should
be offered written lease contracts.
The rentekammer asked officials in Iceland for comments as well as the
kanselli and a committee investigating Icelandic trade. Interesting and in
many cases detailed reports on tenancy and relations between landlords and
tenants followed and each of them is summed up in the article.
Most of the officials were opposed to Hoppe's views and recommenda-
fions, and only one official firmly sided with him. The Danish authorities in
Copenhagen were dependent on information and advice from local officials
>n Iceland and decided not to make any changes in the legislation.
The reports demonstrate clearly the uncertainty and even disagreement
among the administrators as to what were relevant laws on tenancy in Iceland
and how they should be interpreted. This was of course of central importance
in a predominantly agricultural economy, where 83% of all farmers were
tenants. During the seventeenth and eighteenth century a number of laws
had been introduced in order to increase tenants' rights, but landowners
seem to have ignored them more or less with the local officials' consent. The
central question was whether laws ordered all landlords to offer their tenants
life tenancy, which would have provided tenants with a more secure living.
Only a small number of tenants enjoyed life tenancy, maybe as little as 15%,
as figures from one county show. The reports thus confirm the common gen-
eralization that most land was leased on short-term basis, one or two years, or
there was no mention in the lease contracts of time-limits. As a result, tenants
Were constantly moving from one farm to another.
Two of the officials maintained, reflecting the growing feeling in Iceland at
ihat time, that the poor conditions of tenants, of which the short and inse-
cure lease was the most serious disadvantage, were a major obstacle to
improvements in agriculture. They argued for reforms in similar direction
Danish legislation had developed. Other reports rejected the need for
change and stressed the difference between Iceland and Denmark. Farming
m Iceland was almost exclusively based on animal husbandry, in contrast to
cultivation in Denmark, and this required more mobility on behalf of
fermers. The social division between tenants and landowners was much
smaller in Iceland and there was therefore little need to give tenants legal
Protection against landlords as was the case in Denmark.