No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 March 2016
The enforced union of England and Scotland under the Cromwellian Protectorate has been extensively studied, not least because it stands half-way between the union of the crowns in 1603 and the Act of Union of 1707. Without this historical imperative, however, the way in which Ireland was incorporated into the English state remains largely neglected. When dealing with the theory and practice of union in the 1650s, historians have usually dismissed Ireland in a few lines before turning to Scotland — an approach which creates the impression that the English state had absorbed Ireland almost unconsciously. According to David Stevenson, ‘Ireland presented few problems as to her status once conquered ... When the English Parliament had abolished monarchy in England and established the republic, it had done the same in Ireland: the new Commonwealth was that of England and Ireland.’ Others have agreed. Ivan Roots has described the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland as creating ‘a de facto union’, while the Instrument of Government of 1653 (which provided the constitutional basis for protectoral government in England) ‘assumed a union’ between the two nations. By the end of 1653, as John Morrill asserts, Ireland was ‘presumed’ to have been ‘incorporated into an enhanced English state’. Thus, either by the mere fact of conquest, or by implication through the 1653 constitution, union had been achieved without any complications.
1 Levack, B.P., The formation of the British state: England, Scotland and the union, 1603–1707 (Oxford, 1991)Google Scholar; Stevenson, David, ‘Cromwell, Scotland and Ireland’ in Morrill, John (ed.), Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution (London, 1990), pp 149-80Google Scholar; Hirst, Derek, ‘The English Republic and the meaning of Britain’ in Bradshaw, Brendan and Morrill, John (eds), The British problem, c. 1534–1707: state formation in the Atlantic Archipelago (London, 1996), pp 192–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2 Stevenson, ‘Cromwell, Scotland & Ireland’, p. 161.
3 Roots, Ivan, ‘Union and disunion in the British Isles, 1637–1660’ in his ‘Into another mould’: aspects of the Interregnum (revised ed., Exeter, 1998), pp 8, 16Google Scholar.
4 Morrill, John, ‘The British problem, c. 1534–1707’ in Bradshaw, & Morrill, (eds), British problem, pp 32-3Google Scholar.
5 Barnard, T.C., Cromwellian Ireland: English government and reform in Ireland, 1649–60 (Oxford, 1975)Google Scholar; idem, ‘Planters and policies in Cromwellian Ireland’ in Past & Present, no. 61 (1973), pp 31–69Google Scholar; idem, ‘The Protestant interest, 1641–60’ in Ohlmeyer, Jane (ed.), Ireland from independence to occupation, 1641–1660 (Cambridge, 1995), pp 218-40Google Scholar.
6 Barnard, Cromwellian Ireland, p. 280.
7 Barnard, , ‘Protestant interest’, passim; for a detailed study of Old Protestant attitudes in the 1640s see Robert Armstrong, ‘Protestant Ireland and the English parliament, 1641–1647’ (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Trinity College Dublin, 1995)Google Scholar.
8 Birch, Thomas (ed.), A collection of the state papers of John Thurloe (7 vols, London, 1742)Google Scholar (henceforth cited as Thurloe S.P.), ii, 162–3.
9 Barnard, ‘Planters & policies’, pp 61–4; Gillespie, Raymond, ‘The Irish economy at war, 1641–52’ in Ohlmeyer, (ed.), Ireland from independence to occupation, pp 160-80Google Scholar.
10 Barnard, Cromwellian Ireland, pp 256–8.
11 Firth, C.H. and Rait, R. S. (eds), Acts and ordinances of the Interregnum, 1642–1660 (3 vols, London, 1911), ii, 871-5Google Scholar.
12 Ibid., pp 924–6.
13 H.M.C, Egmont, i, 542–3.
14 See, for example, Thurloe S.P., ii, 633; H.M.C., Egmont, i, 557.
15 Thurloe S.P., ii, 633. For the reasons behind Old Protestant support of the old forms see Vincent Gookin’s comments in November 1656 (ibid., v, 647).
16 Ibid., ii, 224.
17 Ibid., p.733.
18 Ibid., iii, 196, 305, 421.
19 Commons’ jn., vii, 371b; Gaunt, Peter, ‘Law-making in the first Protectorate parliament’ in Jones, Colin, Newitt, Malyn and Roberts, S. K. (eds), Politics and people in revolutionary England (Oxford, 1986), p. 179Google Scholar.
20 Commons’ jn., vii, 415b-416a.
21 Ibid., pp 416a, 421b; Diary of Thomas Burton, ed. Rutt, J.T (4 vols, London, 1828), i, p. cxxxiiiGoogle Scholar.
22 Gaunt, ‘Law-making in the first Protectorate parliament’, p. 166.
23 Commons’ jn., vii, 375b.
24 Ibid., p.380a.
25 Barnard, Cromwellian Ireland, pp 36–7, 43, 46; see also Gillespie, ‘Irish economy at war’, pp 179–80; [Gookin, Vincent], The great case of transplantation in Ireland discussed (London, 3 Jan. 1655), pp 15–18Google Scholar.
26 P.R.O., SP 63/286, ff 57v-58r; the list of signatures was headed by that of Daniel Hutchinson, M.P. for Dublin in 1654.
27 Commons’ jn., vii, 401a, 407a.
28 Ibid., p.415b.
29 Note the speed with which the M.P. for Meath and Louth, William Cadogan, dispatched a copy of the proposed legal reforms; and the reaction of some in Dublin, who were ‘transported with joy’ at the news (H.M.C., Egmont, i, 564).
30 Burton’s diary, i, pp lxxxviii-lxxxix; see also Commons’ jn., vii, 395a-b.
31 Thurloe S.P., iii, 23.
32 Ibid., p.l36.
33 Ibid., p. 363.
34 Ibid., pp 614, 744; Barnard, Cromwellian Ireland, pp 259–60.
35 Barnard, Cromwellian Ireland, pp 36–7.
36 Cal. S.P. dom., 1655–6, pp 141, 223. Reynolds was sent to England as Henry Cromwell’s agent in January 1656; for his instructions (including the need to impress on the protector that ‘commerce fails for lack of encouragement’) see Dunlop, Robert (ed.), Ireland under the Commonwealth (2 vols, Manchester, 1913), ii, 560Google Scholar.
37 Commons’ jn., vii, 452a. At this stage the committee included at least seventeen Irish M.P.s: see ibid., pp 427a, 437b, 439a, 445b. William Aston, Sir Anthony Morgan and Sir John Reynolds, all agents of Henry Cromwell, managed the union bill in the house: see Burton’s diary, i, 12, 95, 127, 148, 150, 215, 338.
38 Commons’ jn., vii, 453b, 454a, 455a-b, 458b, 459b; Mercurius Politicus, no. 336 (13-20 Nov. 1656), pp 7389–90; ibid., no. 337 (20-27 Nov. 1656), p. 7406.
39 Commons’ jn., vii, 459b, 461b, 462a.
40 Ibid., pp 464b, 467b, 468b; Burton’s diary, i, 95–6.
41 Commons’ jn., vii, 469b.
42 Burton’s diary, i, 339–40, 352; Commons’ jn., vii, 480b; The diary of Bulstrode Whitelocke, 1605–1675, ed. Spalding, Ruth (London, 1990), p. 454Google Scholar; Mercurius Politicus, no. 344 (8-15 Jan. 1657), p. 7518; ibid., no. 345 (15-22 Jan. 1657), pp 7524, 7543.
43 Commons’ jn., vii, 480b, 482b, 486b, 500a, 519a; Mercurius Politicus, no. 346 (22-29 Jan. 1657), p. 7560; ibid., no. 348 (5-12 Feb. 1657), p. 7583; ibid., no. 356 (2-9 Apr. 1657), p. 7710; Burton’s diary, i, 353. The French ambassador, who had noted the earlier progress of the bill, made no reference to it after 29 Jan. 1657: see Bordeaux to Brienne, 1/11 Dec. 1656 (P.R.O., PRO 31/3/100, ff 112v-113r); see Bordeaux to Brienne, 29 Jan. / 8 Feb. 1657 (ibid., PRO 31/3/101, f. 51r).
44 Barnard, ‘Planters & policies’, pp 62–3.
45 B.L., Lansdowne MS 821, ff 296r, 316r.
46 Thurloe S.P., v, 647; vi, 37
47 Sir Anthony Morgan to Henry Cromwell, 24 Feb. 1657 (B.L., Lansdowne MS 821, f.294v);Sir John Reynolds to Henry Cromwell, 24 Mar. 1657 (ibid., MS 822, f. 3r).
48 Aston, Morgan and Reynolds were among fifteen Irish M.P.s listed as ‘kinglings’: see A narrative of the late parliament (so called) (London, 1658), p. 23Google Scholar.
49 For this point see Cal. S.P. Venice, 1655–6, pp 57–8; Thurloe S.P., vi, 93–4.
50 Logically, the return to an ancient constitution and the creation of a Cromwellian monarchy in Ireland would automatically bring back a Dublin parliament; but constitutional logic was not a strength of the Humble Petition, which even failed to confirm the right of Irish and Scottish members to sit (a situation which would cause a great deal of trouble in 1659: see n. 62). I am grateful to Professor John Morrill and Dr Toby Barnard for discussion of this point.
51 Cal. S.P. Venice, 1655–6, pp 99, 132.
52 Commons’ jn., vii, 504b, 506b, 511a-b, 512a, 514a.
53 Acts & ordinances, Interregnum, ii, 1048–56.
54 Ibid., p.l049.
55 Ibid., p. 1056.
56 Commons’ jn., vii, 512a.
57 Ibid., p.560a.
58 Acts & ordinances, Interregnum, ii, 1129.
59 Ibid., pp 1243–4.
60 See Burton’s diary, ii, 207–11, 224.
61 Barnard, ‘Planters & policies’, pp 63–4; idem, Cromwellian Ireland, pp 27–8, 29–30, 44-5, 47-8.
62 This was an oversight. The fourth article of the Humble Petition drew up qualifications for Irish M.P.s and Irish voters, with the intention that parliament would decide the number and distribution of seats separately (Acts & ordinances, Interregnum, ii, 1050–51); see Hirst, Derek, ‘Concord and discord in Richard Cromwell’s House of Commons’ in E.H.R., ciii (1988), p. 350CrossRefGoogle Scholar.The potential problem of Irish representation had been recognised by the council as early as June 1658: see Thurloe S.P., vii, 193, 541, 565.
63 Lady Ranelagh to earl of Cork, 15 Mar. 1659 (Chatsworth, Lismore MS 30, no. 99).
64 Burton’s diary, iv, 114.
65 lbid., pp 237–9.
66 Ibid., p.240.
67 Ibid., pp 241–2.
68 Commons’ jn., vii, 619a; Burton’s diary, iv, 242-3.
69 Barnard, ‘Planters & policies’, pp 64–5; but see also idem, ‘Protestant interest’, pp 237–8.
70 Scrope, R. and Monkhouse, T. (eds), State papers collected by Edward, earl of Clarendon (3 vols, Oxford, 1767-86)Google Scholar (henceforth cited as Clarendon S.P.), iii, 432, 440. Annesley’s main contact with the royalist party may have been John Mordaunt, who was friendly with Annesley’s brother-in-law, John Lloyd: see John Mordaunt to John Lloyd, 18 May 1657 (P.R.O., C 108/189, pt 2, unfoliated: envelope marked ‘Correspondence’); for Mordaunt, and his suggestive connexions with the marquis of Ormond, see The letterbook of John Viscount Mordaunt, 1658–1660, ed. Coate, Mary (Camden Society, 3rd ser., vol. 69, London, 1945), pp x–xiGoogle Scholar. For Annesley’s later, public support for Charles II see [Annesley, Arthur], England’s confusion (London, 30 May 1659)Google Scholar.
71 Jerome Sankey to Henry Cromwell, 8 Mar. 1659 (B.L., Lansdowne MS 823, f. 247r).
72 Sir Anthony Morgan to Henry Cromwell, 8 Mar. 1659 (ibid., f. 246r); Thomas Gorges to Henry Cromwell, 22 Mar. 1659 (ibid., f. 261r); Burton’s diary, iv, 293.This previous alliance may have encouraged one of the Commonwealthsmen, the regicide Thomas Scott, to seek help from Annesley after the Restoration: see Thomas Scott to Annesley, n.d. [1660] (P.R.O., C 108/188, pt 1, unfoliated: envelope marked ‘Correspondence 2’).
73 The royalist agents realised the importance of Irish and Scottish support for the Protectorate: see Clarendon S.P., iii, 440.
74 Cal. S.P. Ire., 1647–60, p. 699.
75 Dudley Loftus to Henry Cromwell, 19 Apr. 1659 (B.L., Lansdowne MS 823, f. 297r).
76 Acts & ordinances, Interregnum, ii, 1298–9.
77 Roots, ‘Union & disunion’, pp 19–20; Clarke, Aidan, ‘1659 and the road to Restoration’ in Ohlmeyer, (ed.), Ireland from independence to occupation, pp 241-64Google Scholar; Barnard, ‘Protestant interest’, pp 238–9. Clarke, Aidan, Prelude to Restoration in Ireland: the end of the Commonwealth, 1659–1660 (Cambridge, 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar was unavailable at the time of writing.
78 I would like to thank Dr Toby Barnard and Dr David Smith for their comments on an earlier version of this article, which was originally presented as a paper at the ‘Awkward Neighbour’ conference, held at the University of Aberdeen in September 1998.1 would also like to thank the Trustees of the Chatsworth Settlement for permission to consult and quote from an item in the Lismore manuscripts.