Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-19T15:18:43.859Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Flaying the sheep: the 1657 assessment tax and the problems of government in Cromwellian Ireland

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2023

Patrick Little
Patrick Little*
Affiliation:
History of Parliament Trust
*
*Dr Patrick Little, History of Parliament Trust, plittle@histparl.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The assessment tax on land, which paid the occupying army, increased steadily during the 1650s, and soon out-stripped the capacity of the Irish economy, slowly recovering from over a decade of war. Matters came to a head in 1657, when there were efforts by Irish M.P.s at Westminster to reduce the rate, and also pressure from Protestant landowners on the Dublin government to change the way in which the tax was administered. These initiatives brought together landowners from very different backgrounds and from all four provinces, in a coordinated campaign of lobbying which achieved considerable gains in Dublin but was less successful in London. This article uses new evidence to explore the problems endemic within the assessment system, the way in which influence could be brought to bear, and the difficulties encountered by those trying to change policies imposed from across the Irish Sea.

Type
Research Article
Information
Irish Historical Studies , Volume 47 , Issue 171 , May 2023 , pp. 59 - 72
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Irish Historical Studies Publications Ltd

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Rutt, J. T. (ed.), The diary of Thomas Burton, Esq (4 vols, London 1828) [Burton's diary], ii, pp 210‒11Google Scholar. For the parliamentary background, see Little, Patrick and Smith, David L., Parliaments and politics during the Cromwellian Protectorate (Cambridge, 2007), pp 282‒7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 The sufferings of the majority Catholic population who bore the brunt of economic collapse are beyond the scope of this paper: for the wider context, see Cunningham, John, Conquest and land in Ireland: the transplantation to Connacht, 1649‒1680 (Woodbridge, 2011)Google Scholar.

3 Firth, Charles H. and Rait, Robert S. (eds), Acts and ordinances of the Interregnum, 1642‒1660 (3 vols, London 1911), ii, 924‒9Google Scholar.

4 Burton's diary, ii, 209‒10.

5 Burton's diary, ii, 224‒6, 245‒7; Journal of the House of Commons [hereafter Commons’ Journal], vii, 554a, 555b‒6a, 557a.

6 Gaunt, Peter (ed.), The correspondence of Henry Cromwell, 1655‒1659 (Camden Soc. 5th ser., xxxi, Cambridge, 2007), p. 284Google Scholar.

7 See Little & Smith, Parliaments & politics, pp 274‒5, 285‒7.

8 Burton's diary, ii, 163, 167. It was unfortunate that the most influential Old Protestant politician, Lord Broghill, was absent from the Commons with an attack of gout: see Little, Patrick, Lord Broghill and the Cromwellian union with Ireland and Scotland (Woodbridge, 2004), pp 132, 158Google Scholar.

9 Barnard, Toby, Cromwellian Ireland: English government and reform in Ireland, 1649‒1660 (Oxford, 1975), pp 28‒9Google Scholar.

10 Little, Patrick, ‘The first unionists? Irish Protestant attitudes to union with England, 1653‒9’ in I.H.S., xxxii, no. 125 (2000), pp 48, 52‒3, 56Google Scholar.

11 For an overview of the financial and economic situation, see Toby Barnard, ‘Planters and policies in Cromwellian Ireland’ in Past & Present, no. 61 (1973), pp 61‒4; Barnard, Cromwellian Ireland, chapter 3.

12 Burton's diary, ii, 209‒11, 246.

13 T.N.A., SP 63/287, f. 250 (memoranda, n.d.); this probably dates from early 1659, when the tax burden was less than in the early summer of 1657.

14 An assessment for Ireland for three months; at ten thousand pounds by the month, commencing the 16th day of October 1654 & determining the 7th of January following (Dublin, 1654) [hereafter Assessment, Oct. 1654], p. 3; An assessment for Ireland for three months; at ten thousand pounds by the month, commencing the 12th day of January 1654[/5], and determining the 12th of April following (Dublin, 1655) [hereafter Assessment, Jan. 1655], p. 4. There were winners and losers when this adjustment was made: in Ulster, Londonderry and Tyrone paid more, Antrim, Down and Armagh less. Notably although the rates were adjusted between Oct. 1654 and Jan. 1655, the lists of commissioners were almost identical; copies of the two assessments survive in Marsh's Library, Dublin and the National Library of Australia, respectively.

15 An assessment for Ireland for six months, at thirteen thousand pounds per month; commencing the 24th of June 1657, and determining the 24th of December inclusive following (Dublin, 1657) [hereafter Assessment, June 1657], p. 7; a copy is in Marsh's Library, Dublin.

16 Rawdon to Visc. Conway, 8 Apr. 1655, 15 Jan. 1656 (T.N.A., SP 63/286, ff 48v, 141).

17 Rawdon to Conway, 16, 24 Jan. 1657 (T.N.A., SP 63/287, ff 6v, 14).

18 Rawdon to Conway, 10 Dec. 1656 (T.N.A., SP 63/286, f. 240r‒240v).

19 Assessment, Oct. 1654, p. 3; Assessment, Jan. 1655, p. 3; Assessment, June 1657, p. 9. The 1655 rebate was not matched across Munster: most counties remained the same, while Waterford's rate increased from £870 to £1,122.

20 Authority to Peregrine Bradstow, 17 July 1656 (B.L., Add. MS 46936A, f. 133).

21 Randall Clayton to Percivalle, 4 Dec. 1656 (B.L., Add. MS 46936A, f. 153).

22 References to the diary of the 2nd earl of Cork (Chatsworth House, CM/29) are taken from Patrick Little and Coleman A. Dennehy (eds), The diary of Richard Boyle, 2nd earl of Cork and 1st earl of Burlington, 1650‒1673 (forthcoming, I.M.C., Dublin) [hereafter Cork's diary], which is being prepared with the kind permission of the duke of Devonshire and the trustees of the Chatsworth Settlement: Cork's diary, 29 May, 9 June, 11 June 1653; 4, 22, 28, 29 Apr., 25 May 1654.

23 Cork's diary, 21 Sept. 1654, 12, 25 May 1655, 26 Jan., 13 Sept. 1656.

24 Ibid., 2 Oct. 56.

25 Ibid., 28 Oct., 2, 5 Nov. 56. The countess of Ormond also complained of unfair assessment: Barnard, Cromwellian Ireland, p. 29.

26 Assessment, Oct. 1654, pp 7, 9, 15. Fifteen additional commissioners were appointed for Antrim, Down and Armagh, but it is unclear which counties they served.

27 Rawdon to Conway, 16 Jan. 1657 (T.N.A., SP 63/287, ff 6r‒6v).

28 Applotment and account, Orrery barony, 17 July and 1 Aug. 1656 (B.L., Add. MS 46936A, ff 132, 136); applotment, Orrery barony, 10 Apr. 1657 (B.L., Add. MS 46936B, ff 20‒21).

29 See for example, Cork's diary, 13 Sept. 1656. In Waterford, he relied on Nicholas Osbourne: ibid, 2 Oct., 5 Nov. 1656.

30 Rawdon to Conway, 24 Jan. 1657 (T.N.A., SP 63/287, f. 14).

31 Patrick Little, ‘Irish representation in the Protectorate parliaments’ in Parliamentary History, xxiii, no. 3 (2004), p. 345.

32 Little, ‘First unionists?’, pp 50‒51.

33 Commons’ Journal, vii, 504a.

34 Gaunt (ed.), Correspondence of Henry Cromwell, p. 251.

35 Rawdon to Conway, 15 Apr. 1657 (T.N.A., SP 63/287, f. 45). For Rawdon, see J. M. Dickson, ‘The Colville family in Ulster’ in Ulster Journal of Archaeology, ser. 2, v (1899), pp 139‒45.

36 Barnard, Cromwellian Ireland, pp 47‒8.

37 Rawdon to Conway, 22 Apr. 1657 (T.N.A., SP 63/287, f. 47).

38 Cork's diary, 16 Apr. 1657.

39 Ibid., 24 Apr. 1657.

40 For the collegiality of the Old Protestants — fostered during the 1640s — see Toby Barnard, ‘The Protestant interest, 1641‒1660’ in Jane Ohlmeyer (ed.), Ireland from independence to occupation, 1641‒1660 (Cambridge, 1995), pp 218–40.

41 Barnard, ‘Planters and policies’, p. 61.

42 Cork's diary, 27, 28, 30 Apr. 1657.

43 Commons’ Journal, vii, 526b.

44 Rawdon to Conway, 13 May 1657 (T.N.A., SP 63/287, f. 52v).

45 Rawdon to Conway, 26 May 1657 (T.N.A., SP 63/287, f. 53).

46 Assessment, Oct. 1654, p. 9. The 1657 assessment makes it clear that the rules had not changed since the order of October 1654; the only other surviving printed assessment orders from this period that includes the names of the commissioners, covering Jan.‒Apr. 1655 (Assessment, Jan. 1655), is almost identical to its predecessor, except for an adjustment of rates between counties. Renewal notices also survive for the three assessment periods between 12 Apr. 1655 and 12 Jan. 1656 (all entitled Declaration and commission for three months assessment (Dublin, 1655), but issued by orders of 5 Apr., 27 June and 6 Sept. 1655).

47 Assessment, June 1657, pp 16‒17.

48 Ibid., p. 17.

49 Assessment, Oct. 1654, p. 11; Assessment, June 1657, p. 18.

50 Assessment, June 1657, pp 19‒20.

51 Ibid., p. 26.

52 Little, ‘Irish representation’, p. 347; Assessment, June 1657, passim.

53 Assessment, June 1657, p. 15.

54 Ibid., pp 12‒13.

55 Firth and Rait (eds.), Acts and ordinances, ii, 1234‒49; including this instruction was fortuitous, as the act confirming earlier protectoral ordinances, passed on the same day, included the 1654 ordinance establishing the tax escalator, without any amendment (see ibid., ii, 1131‒42).

56 Rawdon to Conway, 20 June 1657 (T.N.A., SP 63/287, f. 64).

57 Rawdon to Conway, 11 July 1657 (T.N.A., SP 63/287, f. 70).

58 Patrick Little, ‘The Irish and Scottish Councils and the dislocation of the Protectoral Union’ in idem (ed.), The Cromwellian Protectorate (Woodbridge, Suffolk, 2007), pp 132‒3.

59 Robert Dunlop, Ireland under the Commonwealth (2 vols, Manchester, 1913), ii, 664‒5.

60 Thomas Birch (ed.), A collection of the state papers of John Thurloe Esq (7 vols, 1742) [hereafter TSP], vi, 411.

61 Firth and Rait (eds.), Acts and ordinances, ii, 1234‒49.

62 Rawdon to Conway, 29 Aug. 1657 (T.N.A., SP 63/287, f. 85v); for continuing problems in eastern Ulster, see TSP, vi, 623.

63 Rawdon to Conway, 9 Dec. 1657 (T.N.A., SP 63/287, f. 131); see also f. 147r–147v (same to same, 23 Jan. 1658).

64 See Barnard, ‘The Protestant interest’, passim.

65 The Irish M.P.s could be powerful when voting as a bloc for the government, but they were very weak when it came to passing domestic legislation; for the general position see Little & Smith, Parliaments & politics, chapter 12.

66 Little, ‘Irish and Scottish Councils’, p. 132.

67 Barnard, Cromwellian Ireland, p. 21; Little, ‘Irish and Scottish councils’, pp 133‒4.

68 Little, ‘First unionists’, pp 51‒3.

69 Cork's diary, 30, 31 Jan., 2, 3 Aug. 1658; see Barnard, Toby, ‘Land and the limits of loyalty: the second earl of Cork and first earl of Burlington (1612‒98)’ in Barnard, Toby and Clark, Jane (eds), Lord Burlington: architecture, art and life (London, 1995), pp 182‒3.Google Scholar

70 TSP, vi, 774.

71 Little, ‘Irish representation’, pp 350, 355‒6.

72 Little, Lord Broghill, pp 162‒3.

73 Burton's diary, iv, 241‒2.

74 Little, ‘First unionists’, pp 55‒6; Barnard, ‘Protestant interest’, pp 237‒8.

75 Clarke, Aidan, Prelude to Restoration in Ireland: the end of the Commonwealth, 1659‒1660 (Cambridge, 1999), p. 249CrossRefGoogle Scholar. I am grateful to Jason McElligott and Neil Johnston for their assistance with this paper.