“Our Chief of Men”
There are many people who divide opinion in Northern Ireland. Amongst those who divide it most and sometimes not in the usual way is the one of whom the above comment was made by John Milton. The man in question is of course Oliver Cromwell. Billy Leonard of Sinn Fein and Samuel Cole of the DUP have been debating his historical legacy. (I would recommend Antiona Fraser’s biography to the interested).
Here in Northern Ireland, Cromwell is seen as the man who ordered the massacre of Drogheda and went through Ireland “like lightening”, I will not attempt an explanation of the differing theories, I have little doubt many here would have much to say on the subject.
Of course Cromwell is also interesting as a republican and regicide, defeater of the Scots and Presbyterians and other things not normally popular with unionists, though he was also a fundamentalist puritan Christian. I have a certain sympathy with there being “None King save Christ alone” but will otherwise keep my own counsel on my views of the man.
And MP for Oxford I think too Malcolm.
Garibaldy,
If you mean Cromwell, no he was MP for Huntingdon outside Cambridge. The same seat as John Major incidentally.
Cheers Turgon. MP for Cambridge too I think from the Cromwell Association website. I got him mixed up with one of his supporters.
Winston Churchill got it right re ‘the curse of Cromwell on you’
There is a town on the east coast of Ireland where Cromwell had to rest his horses . One of the prominent families in the town (Catholic) offered to feed and stall Cromwell’s horse /horses for the night . That family to this day is ‘disparaged’ and they forever apparently earned the epithet of ‘that shower -shure they fed Cromwell’s horse’
Cromwell is a significant figure in the history of these islands . We in Ireland have reason to be particularly jaundiced against the man’s ‘innovations’ but so too have others . The English were apparently only too delighted to dig up his corpse -try it for regicide – hang it and then use the decapitated head as a football ?
So much respect for the one of the ‘founders’ of modern British democracy .
Turgon @ 06:59 PM:
The DNB on-line magazine does an amusing Six degrees of Francis Bacon. This month Francis Showering to Kathleen Raine.
The Huntingdon seat, connecting Cromwell and Major, is about as bizarre as any of the links made there.
Another MP for Huntingdon, by the way, was Charles Boyle, Earl of Orrery (who had also been MP for Charleville in the Irish Parliament, and for whom those models of the solar system — and now the outdoor exhibit at Armagh Observatory — were named).
The first Earl (Charles Boyle’s grandfather) was a remarkable example of the “Vicar of Bray” syndrome. He started as a Royalist, and was personally persuaded by Cromwell to take a command in Ireland. He fought several significant actions, at Macroom, Kilkenny and in the Siege of Limerick. He inveigled the Royalist garrison of Cork to defect to the Parliamentarians. He served as MP for Cork and then for Edinburgh in Cromwell’s Parliaments. He favoured Cromwell taking the Crown, and tried to broker a marriage of Frances Cromwell to Charles Stuart. After the collapse of Tumbledown Dick, he promptly changed sides again, secured Ireland for the Restoration, and was on hand to welcome General Monk to Cork. His reward was the earldom of Orrery. Now, that’s a true Corkman.
Small world (and, in the case of an orrery, ditto solar system).
I have to admit, now that the main passion has gone from this thread, that my take on Cromwell is not helped by recently discovering that in 1648 Parliament fined one of my direct ancestors, John Pigott of Abington Pigotts, Cambridgeshire, the tidy sum of £540 for “delinquency”, because he left his Habitation, and resided in the Enemies Quarters (i.e. he had been a Royalist).
Malcolm,
I am genuinely in awe of you and your knowledge, wit and ability to write. I know you went to a proper university and unlike me did a proper degree (sincerely meant I assure you) but you are quite the most brilliant mind on slugger and your web site merely allows you to demonstrate that brilliance to an even greater degree.
Although we may rarely agree politically I am genuinely one of your fans. If older middle age and retirement were to make me as educated as you, I would be truly delighted. I fear natural talent is, however, against me. Still I hope you are long preserved to make your contibutions.
Your are sir a true gentleman and scholar.
Any one who bans Xmas can’t be all bad.
Turgon @ 08:44 PM:
If only you knew what class my alter ego’s degree really was …
To return to the main point, though: Cromwell should be regarded as important to the growth of Dublin as the metropolis. By making it the centre of military operations, and Ireton’s base, he guaranteed that the city was focal to the country (remembering that in the 1640s Dublin probably had a population of barely 9,000 — so Cromwell’s arrival may well have doubled that number overnight).
Ireton, let us also recall, left a small but significant mark on the city. Behind Dublin Castle is Ship Street, well away from the Quays and any shipping; and still the main entrance for vehicles (the gate was built in 1807 after Emmet’s Rising). The bilingual street sign, with Sraid na Caoire, implies that “Ship” is a misconstruction on “Sheep”. Alas, both are wrong. Until Ireton insisted on the change, it was “Shit Street” (presumably a testimony to the passing sheep). That gem of knowledge is in memory of and © “Punk” Goulden, who failed to teach me Irish, but educated me in far more, at the High School, then in Harcourt Street.
Another contribution of Cromwell to the Dublin economy is that Pádraig Mac Artán came to Dublin, apparently dispossessed from County Down by the Cromwellians. According to the story David Sharrock wrote for the Times last December, Pádraig Mac Artán became Patrick from Gion Ais, near Ballynahinch. And so the Guinness name was created.
The Dublin branch of the Darley family (who made the crucial mistake, unlike their Derbyshire cousins, of being Prods for James II) had a legend. They originally owned a house at Belfield, so it’s now under the UCD campus. The story went that, in the mid-1750s, they rented outbuildings to the original Arthur Guinness, but evicted him for making too many smells. Hence the move to the St James’s Brewery, the rise to riches of the Guinnesses, and the genteel decline of the Darleys.
Malcolm – I add to Turgon’s praise – always good value – I’ll always remember you receiving food aid from Ethiopia after that childhood flood.
*about ten times as many young British Leftists chose later to fight Fascism in Spain (the “Major Attlee Battalion”, no less) as voted for that motion. And many fewer than volunteered for service at the sharp end of the wartime RAF.*
Oh I see, many more British Leftists were prepared to go overseas and fight for a foreign government than were later prepared to fight for their own nation when it stood alone against Joe Stalin’s allies.
Remind me what did Orwell say about British Leftists’ preference for being caught stealing from the poor box and patriotism?
But I fear you are right, we digress from the main theme.
“That family to this day is ‘disparaged’ and they forever apparently earned the epithet of ‘that shower -shure they fed Cromwell’s horse’”
Wow. That’s some MOPE story. Respect where due.
I dunno, but I don’t think there’s too many Prods going around saying- “See that Martin O’Neill, he’s a relation of the fella that killed some of our ancestors at the battle of the Yellow Ford”. It’s called -having a sense of perspective- apparently.
“The English were apparently only too delighted to dig up his corpse -try it for regicide – hang it and then use the decapitated head as a football ?”
Well in the same way that the English were only too delighted to cut off the King’s head. (And the head wasn’t used as a football BTW- its whereabouts was known until before the last war). The elite decreed and the rest did what they were told. There’s no evidence that the desecration of remains was in response to public clamour, though I quite accept that the people wanted the monarchy back after the death of Cromwell. Significantly though they did not the monarchy of Charles I, and when James II tried to revive it, he was slung out on his ear
Dodrade: No offence but I truly believe to call yourself a republican unionist is an oxymoron.
Here, unionism is about identity (as is nationalism). The current state of the constitution is a different matter. For instance – do you accept that Tony Benn can be a republican, without wanting to change his citizenship? Then so can we.
I’m not TAFKABO, and not a republican, but I *can* see the key point in the definition of unionist.
Does anyone know where I could find information on the Cromwellian suppression of the Scots Covenanter armies in Ulster (1649-1650)? On the interweb if possible because I don’t have the luxury of time to check out the Linen Hall library etc. Any help appreciated…
An account of the Battle of Dunbar can be found here:
http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/biog/oliver-cromwell.htm
“That’s some MOPE story.”
Between 1651 and 1661 the population of Ireland decreased by a number estimated to be between 1 in 3 and 7 in 10. Which ever you choose, or whether to decide to appeal to middle ground, it was a phenomenal number and unparalleled elsewhere on these islands and few places throughout the world.
Few of that number died in battle or cowering in Drogheda or Wexford. The vast number died through hunger and disease – and be they Catholic, Protestant or Dissenter, they died in equal measure.
A number between 850,000 and 1.5 million. We are the ancestors of those that survived, and while I have reservations about he veracity of Greenflag’s story, it demonstrates the lasting folk memory that those awful times etched on the people of this island.
No MOPEry involved. What would be more surprising would be to bury it down and pretend that it happened to somebody else.
hmmm
just a few observations oily
firstly, I suspect we aren’t actually the ancestors of anyone from the 17th century, though we may well be their descendants- unless we’re Huguenots
secondly the mere width of the estimates (note definition of word) suggests that.. well, noone actually knows how many died
thirdly, it is quite correct to say that death and suffering were inflicted on all sides, though usually losers come off better than winners. That’s why they lost.
fourthly, I’ll guarantee that Cromwell wasn’t personally responsible for the vast majority of the deaths- read the very fair account of cromwell in ireland on the Cromwell association’s website to see his role in context. I don’t think he introduced hunger or disease.
Fifthly, and frankly it is MOPEry to “remember” the events of these times in this way. If Prods banged on about the role someone’s great granda times ten played in the massacres of 1641 they’d be rightly called a loony. Yeah, we have a certain interest in 1688-1690, but I suspect it’s more to do with the summer festivities than the historical events
oops- meant losers come off worse
darthrumsfeld,
‘Wow. That’s some MOPE story. Respect where due.
Of course I neglected to add said disparagement was ‘done’ with tongue in cheek and not a little humour .
Olibhear,
‘ A number between 850,000 and 1.5 million’
The estimated total to have been killed via wars /famines brought on by wars , etc was approx 683,000 for the period 1550 to 1660 according to samule Samuel Pepys. This number includes the ‘massacre of the settlers’ in 1641 of which it’s estimated ther were some 12,000.
‘and be they Catholic, Protestant or Dissenter, they died in equal measure.’
Not true. Irish Catholics accounted for the vast majority of the dead in the 100 years war or the Second Conquest as it’s sometimes called .
‘We are the ancestors of those that survived’
You sound as if you are writng this from circ the 11th century . Perhaps descendants is what you had in mind
?
darthrumsfeld,
‘Wow. That’s some MOPE story. Respect where due.
Of course I neglected to add said disparagement was ‘done’ with tongue in cheek and not a little humour .
Olibhear,
‘ A number between 850,000 and 1.5 million’
The estimated total to have been killed via wars /famines brought on by wars , etc was approx 683,000 for the period 1550 to 1660 according to Samuel Pepys . This number includes the ‘massacre of the settlers’ in 1641 of which it’s estimated ther were some 12,000.
‘and be they Catholic, Protestant or Dissenter, they died in equal measure.’
Not true. Irish Catholics accounted for the vast majority of the dead in the 100 years war or the Second Conquest as it’s sometimes called .
‘We are the ancestors of those that survived’
You sound as if you are writng this from circ the 11th century . Perhaps descendants is what you had in mind
?
Darth,
A fair few nutters till do go on about 1641.
I found it quite funny to see someone loyal to the crown praising Cromwell while someone who wants to have a republic condemning him.
The former are indeed absurd, but the latter are absolved from this charge, because Cromwell was no Republican. A Regicide yes, but he was unable to establish a Republic because he knew very well that there was no possible electorate he could devise that would not restore the monarchy. He therefore continued to rule as a military dictator. England was never a Republic: during the interregnum the government was known as the junta (actually they spelt it junto).
He does have an important connection to Unionist ideology though: it has been claimed that Unionism is democratic, but there is an important distinction: under democracy, the people elect the government, whereas in (post 1921) Unionism, the government elect the people first. Cromwell’s search for an ideal, reliable Protestant electorate prefigures this ideology.
malcom redfellow,
‘ His reward was the earldom of Orrery. Now, that’s a true Corkman.’
Sounds just like the type that would live in your ear and charge you rent as well . True Corkman ? sounds like it
Ireton, let us also recall, left a small but significant mark on the city.
And also some ‘descendants’ in Co Wexford . A local mechanic with said name repaired my car following a minor ‘skirmish’ on the N11 . When I mentioned to him that one of his ancestors might have been Cromwell’s famed general his reply was he did’nt know and cared less but he knew that Cromwell was a ‘bollix ‘ of the first order .
He did a great job anyway and I motored back to Dublin with ease.
paddy reilly ,
‘under democracy, the people elect the government, whereas in (post 1921) Unionism, the government elect the people first’
Ouch so true it hurts to laugh:)
Robert Mugabe is now introducing a variant on this theme of electing the people first . His new ‘deviation’ is to beat the people who voted the wrong way with 4 inch planks. Another ‘incentive’ being used is to make sure no ‘food aid’ is delivered to those constituencies which had the temerity to vote against ZANU .
To be fair to the UUP they never had to worry about counting the vote until the DUP came along to confuse the issue.
Hold the front page, Oilifear @ 06:13 PM! Can you source those estimates of attrition, please? And can you check that they refer to the 1650s, rather than the previous decade?
You see, I suspect those figures (including attributions to Sam Pepys, who was well after the event, in London, and therefore soooo reliable) derive from Sir William Petty. That’s the only creditable authority who, for the moment, comes to mind. On a quick flick here (and I’m having to use James Lydon), Petty reckoned that the wars in Ireland reduced the population from a bit fewer than 1.5M to 850,000 by 1652. Most of the missing were, of course, Catholic.
Now comes the odd wee problem. As I recall, Petty surveyed just 22 counties. There is no reason to credit his guesstimate of a previous population of 1.4 to 1.5M. Nor, therefore, that going on two-thirds of a million had gone walkabout, “to Hell or (unsurveyed) Connaught”. As my earlier post suggested, at least one family from Down made it as far as Dublin.
What we do know is that the Cromwellian sieges/massacres could have accounted for about 20,000. Another 40,000 took their services to Spain (since they were military, they may well have had families and “camp followers” not included in those musters). A further 10 or 20,000 went the same way as the prisoners taken at Berwick: into servitude in the Sugar Islands.
Not pretty. Not nice. Good propaganda; and therefore poor history.
I’m trying to stick to the verifiable facts. Everything else is induction or speculation or interpreting partial reporters.
Unless, of course, you know more, and can inform us better?
Paddy,
The regime was known as the Commonwealth surely?
Of course there was at this time no inherent link between republicanism and democracy. Far from it when you look at the republics in Italy and Switzerland.
malcolm redfellow ,
‘Another contribution of Cromwell to the Dublin economy is that Pádraig Mac Artán came to Dublin, apparently dispossessed from County Down by the Cromwellians.’
‘Thank Cromwell for Guinness’
Not a marketing slogan that I’d use
On the subject of Dublin Street names there’s an excellent book published by Gill & McMillan written by Paul Clerkin . The author concurs with the accuracy of the ‘sheep’ street origin but also notes that it was also once known as Polemill Street after the pool and monastery founded there in the 6 th century. It eventually became a street of tenements and by the 1980′s hd become derelict, abandoned and vandalised. In fact ‘shit ‘ street. The Office of Public Works has now renovated the buildings creating a streetscape inside the castle compound and restoring the facades. They now face across a paved open area to the new Chester Beatty Library of Oriental Art .
On the Cromwell theme there is a ‘Roundhead Row’ which was named as such by Dublin Corporation in 1876. There may have been not a little humour involved in this name change . The street name it replaced was to say the least somewhat uninviting .
‘Cut-throat Lane’
There is also the nearby (to Roundhead Row) the aptly named ‘Cromwell’s Quarters’ also renamed in 1876 from the previous again somewhat uninviting ‘Murdering Lane’. When Cromwell stopped over in Dublin in 1649 he lodged at the corner of Werburgh St and Castle St . It’s likely that the street was simply renamed along with Roundhead Row as part of a ‘themed’ naming pattern .
Perhaps in view of the increasing number of violent crimes in and around Dublin the ancient medieval names might be restored to their former presumed descriptive accuracy
?
Copper Alley , Silver Street and Golden Lane
This is the year 2008 and you still are the Queen’s subjects. When will this archaic monarchy be eliminated, as it should have been centuries ago with a guillotine.
What does the royal family do, besides travel around on taxpayers dime and represent an empire that enslaved and looted so many different lands to their own ends? It’s pathetic.
darth,
I cannot tell you how relieving it is that you to made a gaff in the same post that you corrected one of mine. Yes, I did mean descendants, not ancestors, though I doubt we would all be Huguenots if I had meant it the other way around (if any of us at all).
“… the mere width of the estimates (note definition of word) suggests that.. well, noone actually knows how many died …”
And that was the essence of much of what I said. Deliberately, I stood back from positively naming a number and explicitly gave that over to others to wrangle over. All that can be said with certainty is that it was a phenomenal number, that the suffering was immense, and that it is therefore unsurprising that those awful days would last in folk memory.
“I’ll guarantee that Cromwell wasn’t personally responsible for the vast majority of the deaths … I don’t think he introduced hunger or disease.”
I never said that he was. Indeed, I never mentioned Cromwell’s name one in my post. Though he is the man not remembered from that era. (At risk of treading on Godwin, other leaders of men are remembered for the terrible suffering of their eras, though they likely never did a violent deed in their lives.)
“… read the very fair account of cromwell in ireland on the Cromwell association’s website to see his role in context.”
Not the first stop that I would take for a “fair account” of Cromwell. Generally enthusiasts associations are going to judge favorably the subject of their enthusiasm, don’t you think?
“… frankly it is MOPEry to ‘remember’ the events of these times in this way.”
In what way? Like I said, I doubt the veracity of Greenflag’s story, but are you really surprised that such suffering would last in folk memory – even throughout the centuries? Should we stop remembering Armistice Day just because it was so long ago? How long until the people of the Indian Ocean should forget the Tsunami? It’s not MOPEry for these things to have a lasting impact. (And I had thought to mention 1641 specifically, it should deservedly be remembered in the same breath – for indeed it is the same breath as Cromwell.)
“… it is quite correct to say that death and suffering were inflicted on all sides, though usually [winners] come off better than [losers]. That’s why they lost.”
Then in this case Catholic, Protestant and Dissenting Irishmen and -women lost in equal measure.
“If Prods banged on about the role someone’s great granda times ten played in the massacres of 1641 they’d be rightly called a loony. ”
And for that reason I doubt Greenflag’s story. It just doesn’t sound real, does it?
“Yeah, we have a certain interest in 1688-1690, but I suspect it’s more to do with the summer festivities than the historical events”
Cool. So if I organize a parade and a pipe band, it’s OK to MOPE? Fleadh Muintire níos Éagóradh ar Fud an Domhain? I likes the sounds of that.
—
Malcolm,
Two gaffs in one post! My error, yes, I did mean the previous decade. The Petty estimation in 1652 is taken as solid, the question then is what was the population in 1641:
“The most authoritative modern assessment concludes that Ireland’s population rose considerably after 1602 and that, by 1641, it supported 2.1 million people. This estimate is obtained by working backwards from fairly reliable eighteenth-century demographic data, though such a technique faces the formidable problem of estimating from very little evidence the effects on population of the decade of upheaval that followed the outbreak of the rebellion. The duke of Ormond, looking back after the Restoration and using Sir William Petty’s figures, reached the more conservative conclusion of a population of between 1.2 and 2 million.” (M. Perceval-Maxwell, The Outbreak of the Irish Rebellion of 1641, Buffalo, N.Y.: McGill-Queen’s University Press. 1994.)
This is where I took my statement that between 1 in 3 (0.8/1.2) to 7 in 10 (0.8/2.1). As I wrote, you may choose which ever figure you prefer, or something in between if that takes your fancy. Whatever your favorite number, it is a phenomenal one. (My statement that 850,000 was the lower number was a third gaff – a mixed up with Petty’s 1652 population number.)
Most of the dead were Catholics – but then most of the population was Catholic. My statement was was that Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter died in equal measure, not number – by which I mean the same proportion death was shared by all.
I’d just like to thank the many contributors to this thread who have helped inform and educate me about people, issues and events that my poor ignorant self has only previously had a sketchy understanding of. I’ve followed some of the information links and been elucidated indeed.
What a pleasure to read, and how pleasantly different to see a history thread which has almost if not entirely avoided all the usual emotional slanging and blaming! And even the limited whataboutery and MOPEry seems to have been mostly tongue-in-cheek.
Congratulations to those knowledgable and erudite contributors who have shown some of the very best aspects of the internet as a tool for discussion and information. It’s a shame so many threads on more comtemporary topics aren’t so well served.
Oilifear @ 12:36 AM:
Interesting that you call in aid Perceval-Maxwell.
Jonathan Bardon is quite light on the period from Sir Phelim O’Neill to the Restoration, just half-a-dozen pages in chapter 5.
I see, though, that he deploys Perceval-Maxwell to give some credence to stories of the 1641 Massacres:
James Lydon goes further:
Of course, in the final analysis, whether the stories of the massacres hold water does not greatly matter. That, as I have tried to suggest previously, is equally true about the extent of the Cromwellian counter-action.
As Antonia Fraser (remember her?) pertinently comments:
Malcolm, I feel like you’re arguing with me. How is it interesting that I call Perceval-Maxwell “in aid”? I have from the outset said that Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter died in equal measure and in my last post said that, “I had thought to mention 1641 specifically, it should deservedly be remembered in the same breath – for indeed it is the same breath as Cromwell.”
I counter that it is interesting that you call Antonia Fraser to “your aid”. In the very piece that you cite she points to widely verying estimates of death, just as I did, and arrives at a similar conclusion. What she called “horrific figures”, I called “phenomenal numbers”.
To return to the original point, is really so surprising that stories like the one Greenflag related would be carried through the folk memory of such an awful time? Is that MOPEry? Or simply the pockmark of horror?
Oilifear @ 11:47 AM:
Seriously (and the only way to play those opening 60 lines is for belly-laughs), I had no intention of provoking further dissention. Nor, as one over-ready to resort to quotation for “aid”, did I intend to “cast nasturtiums”.
My point was that Percival-Maxwell specifically (see intro., page xiii) argues that he is:
That is a different interpretation to the one I was fed (so long ago) at school and college. It is valid because, for example, when the Commons session of 1 November 1641 (see my previous post) received the reports from Ulster, Pym used them as further incendiary ammunition for blaming the King. Out of that, of course, (on 22nd November) Parliament manufactured the Great Remonstrance. So, I was acknowledging the Percival-Maxwell approach: that it is difficult to isolate Irish, English and Scottish threads at that juncture (pace the impeachment of Strafford).
Another area where Percival-Maxwell scores is his critique of how the authorities (foreshadowings of so many other occasions, all the way to 1916?) over-reacted: Coot(e) in Leinster; St Leger in Munster, plus the suppression of the Irish parliament at a moment when it could perhaps have been a safety valve.
No more, no less.
For me, there seem to be a couple of weaknesses in how Percival-Maxwell develops his thesis.
One is he seems to endorse the common assumption that Ireland, pre-1641, was enjoying a pacific and prosperous phase. That is, surely, denied by the way the leaders (Phelim O’Neill, Rory Maguire and Philip O’Reilly — “discontented gentlemen” and Irish MPs all) so quickly lost control of the rebellion. The violent eruption by the peasants and tenants indicates festering grievances.
The other, well chewed over in the academic reviews, is how Percival-Maxwell considers the Earl of Antrim. Antrim, let us recall, was the key testimony that the King intended Strafford’s Irish forces actually to be deployed against the Scottish Covenanters, rather than dangled as a potential threat (as P-M would have it). That, of course, was another critical issue in inflaming the Parliamentarians.
Can we agree all that is, at least marginally, “interesting”?
yup oily- hoist with me own petard, and deservedly so
I accept your nuanced and valid response to the points I made.
I agree the Association ( declaring my interest as a member thereof) is pro-Cromwell but if I may be forgiven a tedious link, it reports his Irish campaign warts and all.
I would like to join in the joke about your pipe band and parade, but me cupla focal doesn’t extend to the phrase used- any chance of a translation?
I still say it’s wrong to MOPE- as I think in fairness do you.
Malcolm
Thank you for a very thoughtprovoking post @ 1.10 pm. I hadn’t considered a role for the irish parliament of the type envisaged.
This was a ferociously complicated time, and ironically I’ve no doubt that if I’d been around then I’d have been in the Scots Covenanting army- probably engagin in hostilities with the parliamentarians, possibly even besieging Londonderry.
The estimates of the population of Ireland in 1600 are in the range 1.0 to 1.5 million; in 1700 they are in the range 2.0 to 2.8 millions. Figures for 800000 of ‘unnatural losses’ between these dates are simply incredible. Such depradedations would have represented losses greater than those caused by the Black Death, a demographic catastrophe from which it took most countries in Europe two centuries to recover. Even assuming that the number of Protestants in 1600 was negligible and it was 30% in 1700 this still implies an increase in the Catholic population greater than that in total population achieved either by England or by Scotland. Only in Germany were the losses caused by the religious wars massive enough to cause a serious dent in population growth.
DavidD @ 05:25 PM:
Your points are well-made: we are working with some very dubious “estimates”. Lydon goes for an even lesser figure:
Some of those landowners went to remarkable lengths: the Earl of Thomond brought in Dutch settlers, for an example. The immigrants were in a sellers’ market, and saw themselves as free-agents, not constrained by official ideas of planting particular areas.
What else , then, do we assuredly “know”?
First that a trans-Atlantic flow of emigrants was already happening, mainly Catholics into indentured service. Others went into mercenary armies in Europe: between 1605 and 1616, Chichester recruited 6,000 men for Sweden. On top of that there was a significant brain-drain into the Catholic universities and seminaries of the Continent. All of that diluted the Catholic population to a greater or lesser extent.
Second, the Plantation of Ulster was far from a success, mainly because the greed and reach of the undertakers in London far exceeded their grasp. There was not widespread displacement of the previous occupants: many, if not most, remained as tenants (not surprising, with half-a-million acres to exploit). The biggest change, then, was land-tenure, not essential demography — with the exception of importing a new class of land-lords, and the creation of new towns. Dungannon was incorporated in 1612; Coleraine, Londonderry [recte] and Belfast the following year. By 1616 there were 215 stone houses inside the walls of Derry. However, as Lydon (again) tersely remarks:
The main influx of Scots, perhaps 100,000, was into Down and Antrim, outside the intended Plantation. That was over-successful. It depopulated parts of the Borders (aided, no doubt, by the union of the Crowns pacifying the Borderland, and ending two centuries of reiving as a way of life). In 1636 a licence scheme for emigration from Scotland was approved (and generally ignored).
All of that might imply that the population of Ireland, throughout the 17th century, was buoyant. But, as you say, there is no scope for the higher assumptions of attrition in 1641-52.
The wost solecism, surely, is to distinguish “Protestant” English and “Presbyterian Scots” from “Catholic” Irish. It was far more complex than that. The Plunketts, the Keatings, the Nugents, the Fitzgeralds and the rest of that complicated brood of “Old English”, although sitting in an Irish parliament and seeing themselves a class above the “Irish”, could still be put in their place by an English official referring to them as “Taighs”.
What the Cromwellian settlement achieved was to hasten the transfer of land-holding from Catholic to Anglican hands. At the outset of the Ulster Plantation, Ireland was “owned” by 2,000 Catholic gentry, many of them “Old English”. In 1641, they still held near on 60%. That was down to 22% in 1660 and to just 14% by 1714 (another shameless steal from Lydon).
As for all of those land-grants to Cromwellian soldiers (by 1652, Parliament owed £1.5 million for back-pay and associated war-debts), within two generations they had been assimilated, and many of their descendants were Irish-speaking and practising Catholicism. The prohibition on associating with Irish women was clearly ignored as comprehensively as “no-fraternising” was after 1945.