the first unionists? irish protestant attitudes to union with england, 1653-9

Irish Historical Studies Publications Ltd

The First Unionists? Irish Protestant Attitudes to Union with England, 1653-9Author(s): Patrick LittleSource: Irish Historical Studies, Vol. 32, No. 125 (May, 2000), pp. 44-58Published by: Irish Historical Studies Publications LtdStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30007016 .

Accessed: 17/06/2014 22:16

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Irish Historical Studies Publications Ltd is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toIrish Historical Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.96 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 22:16:28 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ihsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/30007016?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Irish Historical Studies, xxxii, no. 125 (May 2000)

The first unionists? Irish Protestant attitudes to union

with England, 1653-9

T he 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 1707.1 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.'2 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.3 By the end of 1653, as John Morrill asserts, Ireland was 'presumed' to have been 'incorporated into an enhanced English state'.4 Thus, either by the mere fact of conquest, or by implication through the 1653 constitution, union had been achieved without any complications.

The traditional view of the constitutional position of Ireland under the Protectorate is, however, open to question. The argument that the settlement imposed by an imperialistic English government had reduced Ireland to an appendage, with no right to self-determination, lies awkwardly with what Toby Barnard has told us of the growing confidence of the pre-1649

'B. P Levack, The formation of the British state: England, Scotland and the union, 1603-1707 (Oxford, 1991); David Stevenson, 'Cromwell, Scotland and Ireland' in John Morrill (ed.), Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution (London, 1990), pp 149-80; Derek Hirst,'The English Republic and the meaning of Britain' in Brendan Bradshaw and John Morrill (eds), The British problem, c. 1534-1707: state formation in the Atlantic Archipelago (London, 1996), pp 192-219.

2Stevenson,'Cromwell, Scotland & Ireland', p. 161. 3Ivan Roots, 'Union and disunion in the British Isles, 1637-1660' in his 'Into

another mould': aspects of the Interregnum (revised ed., Exeter, 1998), pp 8, 16. 4John Morrill, 'The British problem, c. 1534-1707' in Bradshaw & Morrill (eds),

British problem, pp 32-3.

44



LrrrLE - Irish Protestant attitudes to union with England, 1653-9 45

settlers - the 'Old Protestants' - during the 1650s.5 Even a cursory glance at the evidence suggests that, as the Old Protestant community began to have an influence over affairs in the other two nations, contemporaries became restless about the constitution. The need to clarify the exact nature of the relationship prompted the introduction of union bills in the 1654 and 1656 parliaments, but on both occasions the legislation failed. In the parliament of 1659 the right of Irish M.P.s to sit at Westminster again came into question, sparking a violent debate about the validity of the 'presumed' union. The constitutional relationship of Ireland and England may have been settled implicitly in 1653, but the lack of statutory provision meant that the 'Irish question' was still alive six years later.6 In this article I shall exam- ine the repeated attempts to define the constitutional relationship of Ireland with England in the parliaments of the 1650s, and the implications of such initiatives on our understanding of the position of the Old Protestants within the Cromwellian empire.

I

The Old Protestants had always valued their close relationship with England. Most were first- or second-generation settlers, with strong family (and often landed) connexions with England. As their sense of identity as a separate community grew, there was no corresponding decline in their feel- ing of Englishness. During the 1640s the shared experience of the Irish wars had increased their sense of solidarity as a group; but it had also intensified their attachment to England and its parliament as the only realistic hope for continued Protestant dominance in Ireland. Sir John Clotworthy, William Jephson, Arthur Annesley and other leading Old Protestants became English M.P.s; Irish agents thronged the lobbies at Westminster; and by the late 1640s the factional disputes within Ireland had become thoroughly entwined with those of the English parliament. This attachment to England - whether emotional, financial or political - continued into the early 1650s, when a number of Old Protestants served alongside Cromwellian troops against the Irish, while others continued to work for the Dublin government or attend the council of state at Whitehall. During the Irish wars it had become apparent that the Old Protestants' desire for closer involvement in English affairs was not fully reciprocated; but they had little choice but to continue to lobby the English government - and especially Oliver Cromwell - as the only chance to secure a permanent settlement.7

5T. C. Barnard, Cromwellian Ireland: English government and reform in Ireland, 1649-60 (Oxford, 1975); idem,'Planters and policies in Cromwellian Ireland' in Past & Present, no. 61 (1973), pp 31-69; idem, 'The Protestant interest, 1641-60' in Jane Ohlmeyer (ed.), Ireland from independence to occupation, 1641-1660 (Cambridge, 1995), pp 218-40.

6Barnard, Cromwellian Ireland, p. 280. 7Barnard, 'Protestant interest', passim; for a detailed study of Old Protestant atti-

tudes in the 1640s see Robert Armstrong, 'Protestant Ireland and the English parliament, 1641-1647' (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Trinity College Dublin, 1995).



46 Irish Historical Studies

When the protector's son, Henry Cromwell, visited Dublin in the spring of 1654 he was feted by the Old Protestant community, delighted that at last 'religion, ministry, laws, men's proprieties, are owned and protected'.8 This was not a random list: Ireland was facing an administrative and economic crisis. Parliamentary acts in 1652-3 had begun to tackle the question of the confiscation and reallocation of Irish lands, but other matters remained unaddressed. The occupying forces ruled without discretion and introduced radical religious and political ideas into the garrison towns. The economy was in a parlous state, with agriculture and trade struggling to recover from over a decade of war, and the continued military presence necessitating crippling taxation.' The traditional law-courts had been suspended, and the administration of justice was dominated by the army.10 The Old Protestants, who had suffered discrimination under the Commonwealth, welcomed the Protectorate as offering a degree of stability and a chance to reduce the power of the army in Ireland. In particular, hopes were high that the unsym- pathetic lord deputy, Charles Fleetwood, would be replaced by Henry Cromwell. Although the latter's visit to Ireland was short-lived and did not result in an immediate change in government, in the summer of 1654 there was growing confidence that reform would now be advanced through his influence with the protector.

On 12 April 1654, a few days after Henry Cromwell's departure from Ireland, the English council passed an ordinance for the union of Scotland and England. The terms of this ordinance had obvious relevance to the situation in Ireland. The political union, founded by the provision in the 1653 Instrument of Government for thirty Scottish M.P.s, was confirmed; customs barriers were abolished; all assessments were to be imposed 'proportion- ately from the whole people of this Commonwealth'; and the legal system was scheduled for reform." Soon afterwards the very same issues were being discussed in Whitehall and Dublin with reference to Ireland. On 23 June 1654 the government made some economic concessions in its ordinance to 'encourage' the English adventurers; these included promises to introduce proportionate assessment rates in due course, and to ease customs duties, although this would only affect goods imported to Ireland from England.12 These moves were prompted by complaints from the English adventurers that there could be 'no plantation without they have that be granted to them which is granted to Scotland lately'. The fate of the government's ordinance and the adventurers' petition was carefully monitored by the Old Protestants in Dublin.13 The state of the judicial system was

8Thomas Birch (ed.), A collection of the state papers of John Thurloe (7 vols, London, 1742) (henceforth cited as Thurloe S.P), ii, 162-3.

'Barnard, 'Planters & policies', pp 61-4; Raymond Gillespie, 'The Irish economy at war, 1641-52' in Ohlmeyer (ed.), Ireland from independence to occupation, pp 160-80.

10Barnard, Cromwellian Ireland, pp 256-8. 11C. H. Firth and R. S. Rait (eds), Acts and ordinances of the Interregnum,

1642-1660 (3 vols, London, 1911), ii, 871-5. 12Ibid., pp 924-6. 13H.M.C., Egmont, i, 542-3.



LIrTLE - Irish Protestant attitudes to union with England, 1653-9 47

another concern, especially as disputes over land claims began to arise. Fleetwood's government had started to discuss reforms, and there was also considerable interest among the Old Protestants.'4 In terms of judicial hier- archy, the Old Protestants wanted a return to the pre-1649 system, with its four courts of justice in Dublin, which were seen as vital to wresting the administration of justice from the hands of the army." Fleetwood wanted a different type of reform, with only two courts instead of four, possibly with the intention of extending government control over the legal process.16 During the 1654 parliament he opposed attempts 'in England to settle all the four courts here, which in my opinion is very needless','7 and he continued to oppose moves to resurrect the old courts during the spring of 1655.'~ Despite differences in emphasis between the nations, the Scottish union ordinance, with its programme of reform in justice, customs and assessments, seems to have been influencing the debate on the settlement of Ireland in the summer and autumn of 1654.

The 1654 parliament was dominated by the government's need to gain statutory backing for the Protectorate through an act ratifying the Instrument of Government. Despite instructions to the committee of Irish affairs to advance 'the settlement and good' of Ireland early in the session,19 it was only after the Instrument of Government had been thoroughly dis- sected that the Irish union bill was introduced on 15 January 1655.20 This delay was the principal reason that the bill did not survive beyond its first reading. A violent dispute arising from the Instrument of Government and disagreements over religious policy prompted Cromwell to dissolve the parliament on 22 January - the very day that the Irish bill was due to be read for a second time.21 Although no copies of the bill survive, it is possible to reconstruct its contents, and to identify who supported it in the Commons.22 The three most important heads seem to have been the abolition of customs duties, the reform of the law, and the introduction of proportionate assessments between England and Ireland. The lifting of customs duties was of particular importance to the Irish M.P.s. On 12 October parliament expanded its trade and customs committee to include two Old Protestant M.P.s, Lord Broghill and Arthur Hill;23 and when, at the end of the month, there was a vote on legislation for the transport of corn and butter, Broghill

14See, for example, Thurloe S.P., ii, 633; H.M.C., Egmont, i, 557. 15Thurloe 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). 16Ibid., ii, 224. "Ibid., p. 733. 18Ibid., iii, 196, 305,421. 19Commons'jn., vii, 371b; Peter Gaunt,'Law-making in the first Protectorate par-

liament' in Colin Jones, Malyn Newitt and S. K. Roberts (eds), Politics and people in revolutionary England (Oxford, 1986), p. 179.

20Commons'jn., vii, 415b-416a. 21Ibid., pp 416a, 421b; Diary of Thomas Burton, ed. J.T. Rutt (4 vols, London, 1828),

i, p. cxxxiii. 22Gaunt,'Law-making in the first Protectorate parliament', p. 166. 23Commons'jn., vii, 375b.




acted as teller in favour of easing restrictions.24 Such matters were of

especial concern to the Irish, for whom butter and corn were the most lucrative exports during this period.25 The inclusion of trade and customs measures in the union bill is again hinted at by a petition sent by the Dublin merchants to Henry Cromwell in May 1655 - less than four months after the parliament had been dissolved - asking that, as 'by an act of parliament Ireland is declared to be of the Commonwealth of England', customs be removed and Ireland accorded 'equal privilege with Scotland'.26 The abolition of trade barriers on the Scottish pattern was evidently an integral part of the Irish union bill.

The reform of the Irish law-courts received direct attention in various parliamentary committees in December 1654.27 The title of the union bill, as recorded in the Commons' journals, 'for uniting Ireland unto the Commonwealth of England, re-establishing the courts of judicature there, the placing of judges in the said courts, and making a great seal and other seals to be used in Ireland', confirms that legal reform was an important con- stituent.28 Moreover, the intention to 're-establish' the old courts, in the face of Fleetwood's earlier opposition to this proposal, suggests that this article of the union bill was not the initiative of the lord deputy, but of the Old Protestants themselves.29 The assessment tax also featured in the parliamentary debates. According to the diarist Guibon Goddard, attempts to set separate assessments for Ireland and Scotland in November 1654 were vigorously resisted by the Irish M.P.s, who 'moved, that those nations might be involved in the same bill of charge with England'.30 Their protests, based on fears that a reduction on the English assessment would increase the charge on Ireland, seem to have been prompted by the terms of the Scottish union ordinance, which had promised 'proportionate' assessments between the nations.

Overall, two conclusions can be made concerning the union bill introduced in the 1654 parliament. First, the inclusion of customs, law reform and proportionate assessments reinforces the impression that the Scottish union ordinance formed the blueprint for the Irish bill. Second, it seems that all these measures were supported by the Old Protestants before, during and after the sitting of parliament. The response of the Dublin government was far from enthusiastic. In December 1654 Fleetwood attacked the motives of 'some, who relate to Ireland (not of the soldiers) who do ill offices in

24Ibid., p. 380a. 25Barnard, Cromwellian Ireland, pp 36-7, 43, 46; see also Gillespie,'Irish economy

at war', pp 179-80; [Vincent Gookin], The great case of transplantation in Ireland discussed (London, 3 Jan. 1655), pp 15-18.

26p.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.

27Commons' jn., vii, 401a, 407a. 28Ibid., p. 415b. 29Note the speed with which the M.P. for Meath and Louth, William Cadogan, dis-

patched 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).

30Burton's diary, i, pp lxxxviii-lxxxix; see also Commons' jn., vii, 395a-b.



LrrrLE - Irish Protestant attitudes to union with England, 1653-9 49

England'.31 He certainly seems to have had the Old Protestants and their union plans in mind when he expressed satisfaction after the closure of parliament that 'evil men are very much dejected and disappointed in the late dissolution'.32 The partisan nature of the union bill is also suggested by reports in later months that pamphlets attacking the dissolution of parliament had been distributed by an Irish M.P.33 It can thus be suggested that, far from being imposed by the government, the Irish union bill of 1654 was the initiative of the Old Protestant community.

II

In the twenty months between the dissolution of parliament in January 1655 and the convening of the new parliament in September 1656, the economic and political situation in Ireland started to improve. For the Old Protestants, the arrival of Henry Cromwell as general of the Irish army in 1655 was a welcome move, even though its benefits were offset by the protector's insistence on retaining the absentee Fleetwood as lord deputy. Unlike Fleetwood, Henry Cromwell actively supported the revival of the four courts of justice, and through his efforts the old forms were re-established in July 1655.34 Although high assessment rates continued to cause dis- may, trade began to improve.35 In the new year of 1656 the English trade committee was expanded to include the Ulster Protestant, Arthur Hill, and Henry Cromwell's ally, Sir John Reynolds, on the same day that it was ordered to consider allowing 'the people of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland to transport into England and Scotland from Ireland, butter, cheese, all sorts of cattle, grain, linen cloth, custom free'. Although orders were not passed allowing free trade in every commodity suggested, in March 1656 the council did agree to lift customs duties on Irish linen.36 Despite the opti- mism of some in Ireland, problems remained. Not least, it was painfully obvious that, in order to continue its recovery, Protestant Ireland needed guarantees that the government's reforms would be upheld. Without some kind of statutory safeguard, the Old Protestants, in particular, remained acutely vulnerable to political changes in Dublin and Whitehall. The exper- iment of the major-generals in England, and the prominence of military men such as Fleetwood and John Lambert in the protector's council, did nothing to allay such anxieties; and when parliament reconvened in September 1656, Irish thoughts once again turned to union legislation.

31Thurloe S.P., iii, 23. 32Ibid., p. 136. 33Ibid., p. 363. 34bid., pp 614, 744; Barnard, Cromwellian Ireland, pp 259-60. 35Barnard, Cromwellian Ireland, pp 36-7. 36Cal. S. 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 Robert Dunlop (ed.), Ireland under the Commonwealth (2 vols, Manchester, 1913), ii, 560.




Like its predecessor in 1654, the Irish union bill introduced in the 1656 parliament would never come to fruition. Initially the legislation progressed without much delay: on 10 November 1656 parliament's committee of Irish affairs was instructed to draft a bill 'for uniting of Ireland into one Commonwealth with England';37 the bill received its first reading on 15 November, and its second four days later; and the matter was then referred to a committee of the whole house, which met on 26 November.38 However, the second session of the committee, scheduled for 29 November, was post- poned twice, and minor legislation given precedence.39 On 5 December a new meeting was set, but this was interrupted by the long debate on the fate of the notorious Quaker, James Naylor.40 A grand committee on the union bill, scheduled for 19 December, failed to meet; and the militia bill, introduced on Christmas Day, delayed matters further.41 It was not until mid- January 1657 - two months after the first reading - that the Irish union was debated by a grand committee. At this meeting the issue of customs duties, which had been part of the 1654 bill, was the focus for a sharp, if short, debate. In the words of the diarist, Thomas Burton,'that clause about quitting that nation of custom (which indeed is the main of all) held till one, but we came to no resolution, only referred it to a sub-committee'.42 Thereafter there were efforts to reconvene the grand committee at the beginning of February, though without success, and two attempts to revive the legislation in March and April also failed; but it is clear that the bill was already dead by mid-February.43

What had happened? In his seminal article 'Planters and policies in Cromwellian Ireland' Toby Barnard attributed the failure of the 1656 union bill to the controversial nature of its 'main' head: the removal of the customs. As this would make Irish trade more competitive, it would have attracted the hostility of English merchant M.P.s, who proceeded to kill off the union bill altogether in the following weeks.44 The issue of customs had

"37Commons' 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.

38Commons' 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.

39Commons' jn., vii, 459b, 461b, 462a. 40Ibid., pp 464b, 467b, 468b; Burton's diary, i, 95-6. 41Commons' jn., vii, 469b. 42Burton's diary, i, 339-40, 352; Commons' jn., vii, 480b; The diary of Bulstrode

Whitelocke, 1605-1675, ed. Ruth Spalding (London, 1990), p. 454; Mercurius Politicus, no. 344 (8-15 Jan. 1657), p. 7518; ibid., no. 345 (15-22 Jan. 1657), pp 7524, 7543.

43Commons' 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).

"Barnard,'Planters & policies', pp 62-3.



LrrTLE - Irish Protestant attitudes to union with England, 1653-9 51

indeed provoked a sharp exchange in January 1657, and the economy continued to be a primary concern of the Irish M.P.s; but there was another fac- tor which was of much greater importance. The demise of the union bill in February was almost certainly due to the introduction of the Remonstrance - soon to be renamed the Humble Petition and Advice - on 23 February. Contemporaries made the connexion: Henry Cromwell's agent, Sir John Reynolds, reported on 24 February that 'we are again engaged in a long debate which will necessarily postpone our other business, as well as that of Ireland'; and on 3 March he added that 'the new model of government ... takes up the whole time, and no room for Ireland in the thoughts of any until this be dispatched'.45 But it would be misleading to suggest that the union bill had simply been starved of parliamentary time by the Humble Petition and Advice. It has already been suggested that the Irish M.P.s were eager to introduce their bill in 1656 because it would form a safeguard against changes in policy in England as well as Ireland. As the parliament continued, and issues such as the militia bill (which determined the fate of the English major-generals) and the Humble Petition and Advice (with its call for a return to monarchical government) took centre stage, it became obvious that the future of Ireland was dependent on the current power struggle in England. The coherence of the Irish M.P.s, under the leadership of Lord Broghill, had already been obvious in debate in November 1656, and in early February 1657 Vincent Gookin, M.P. for Bandon and Kinsale, boasted that the Irish and Scottish M.P.s 'being much united do sway exceedingly by their votes'.46 This bloc-vote was now marshalled behind the Humble Petition. According to one Irish M.P. writing about the Humble Petition on 24 February 1657, 'The Irish [are] all for it'; another commentator, a month later, asserted that 'except two persons, all those of Ireland are of one mind'.47 Irish M.P.s such as William Aston, Sir Anthony Morgan and Sir John Reynolds, who had vigorously supported the union bill earlier in the parliament, now became important supporters of wider constitutional reform.8 In short, the energies which had been channelled towards the union bill in 1654 and 1656 were now directed towards the Humble Petition and Advice. The reasons were plain: if Oliver Cromwell could be persuaded to accept the offer of the crown which lay at the heart of the Humble Petition, the union bill might be rendered unnecessary, for a Cromwellian king would be far better able to resist the influence of the army; he would also be forced to accept certain definite limits to his power - and that of the rdgime as a whole.49 A stable monarchical government would provide an ideal environ- ment for the settlement of civil affairs in Ireland and the increase in her economic prosperity - which was, of course, the fundamental aim of the union

45B.L., Lansdowne MS 821, ff 296r, 316r. 46Thurloe S.P, v, 647; vi, 37. 47Sir 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). "Aston, Morgan and Reynolds were among fifteen Irish M.Ps listed as 'kinglings':

see A narrative of the late parliament (so called) (London, 1658), p. 23. 49For this point see Cal. S.P Venice, 1655-6, pp 57-8; Thurloe S.P., vi, 93-4.




legislation introduced in 1654 and 1656.50 The link between kingship and the benefits of union had been identified as early as the autumn of 1655, when the Venetian ambassador reported that moves to grant the protector a 'higher title' went hand-in-hand with plans to 'constitute the three nations, England, Scotland and Ireland into a single body politic'.51

The way in which the union agenda had become absorbed into the new constitution became apparent in the next few weeks, as the votes passed on the Humble Petition and Advice were systematically 'unionised' to include Irish and Scottish concerns. Throughout the progress of the proposed constitution the text was amended, with 'this nation' being changed to 'these nations' in relation to a series of important articles and to the title of the bill once engrossed.52 The final version of the Humble Petition, passed on 25 May 1657, contained seventeen uses of the term 'these nations', with 'this nation' appearing just once." As a result, the new constitution hailed Cromwell (who had refused the title of king in the previous April) as 'Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland' and as 'chief magistrate of these nations'.54 At the end of the document the M.P.s urged Cromwell 'to heal our breaches and divisions, and to restore these poor nations to a union and consistency with themselves'." The reference to 'union' was not coincidental: even without the triple crown, the three nations of the Cromwellian state were now deemed to be a united people. Something of this new 'British' approach to legislation can also be seen in the fiscal bills which were passed in the closing stages of this parliament. As in 1656, there were efforts to widen the application of trade measures. The wine price bill of March 1657 was amended to specify that it would cover 'England, Scotland and Ireland'." The new customs bill of June 1657, which included measures to encourage the butter trade, was extended '[to] be in force, and upon the like penalties, in Scotland and Ireland'.57 Likewise, the tunnage and poundage bill instituted equal rates across the three nations and specified that all previous legislation on this subject was 'to be in full force in Scotland and Ireland'." The General Assessment Act, passed in June 1657, was unusual in that it covered all three kingdoms and set specific tax rates for the Irish counties and towns.59 On this occasion the Irish M.P.s

50Logically, 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.

51Cal. S. P Venice, 1655-6, pp 99,132. 52Commons' jn., vii, 504b, 506b, 511a-b, 512a, 514a. 53Acts & ordinances, Interregnum, ii, 1048-56. 54lbid., p. 1049. 55Ibid., p. 1056. 56Commons'jn., vii, 512a. 57Ibid., p. 560a. 58Acts & ordinances, Interregnum, ii, 1129. 59Ibid., pp 1243-4.



LrTTLE - Irish Protestant attitudes to union with England, 1653-9 53

opposed the bill because the rates were set too high,60 but the principle of proportionate assessments - another head of the union bills - had appar- ently been conceded. In this, as in other financial and economic measures, it seems that the scope of legislation was being broadened to include Scotland and Ireland, and this went some way to compensating for the absence of specific union legislation.

In content, the union bill introduced in 1656 seems to have been very similar to that drawn up in 1654, with issues such as customs duties again being prominent. But thereafter the political climate changed radically. In 1654 the union was a defensive measure, more a way of establishing a bottom line for political and economic interaction between Ireland and England than asserting equality across the nations. The subsequent improvements in the Irish economy, and in particular the arrival of Henry Cromwell, seem to have made the Old Protestants more ambitious at Westminster. Once again a limited union bill was introduced, but it was quickly dropped when something better - the far-reaching constitution under the Humble Petition and Advice - became a realistic goal. The Humble Petition included political and constitutional benefits previously sought through union legislation, and also ushered in a series of acts designed to integrate Ireland into the British economy. The corollary to this process was that the Old Protestants were becoming ever more closely associated with the Cromwellian Protectorate. This development was encouraged by Henry Cromwell, and was promoted by Lord Broghill and other Old Protestants who held lucrative government posts or wielded political influence at Whitehall. But there were many enemies of the Protectorate who were greatly concerned by the sudden influence of the Irish lobby at Whitehall and would soon show their anger at the attempt to 'Hibernicise' English politics.

III

In the months between the adjournment of parliament in June 1657 and the meeting of the third Protectorate parliament in January 1659 the Old Protestants made some significant advances. Above all, the appointment of Henry Cromwell as lord deputy in Fleetwood's place in November 1657 was followed by a period of political stability in which the Old Protestants increased their influence over Irish affairs. But gains in some areas were matched by losses in others. The economy began to decline: the Irish customs burden, farmed out to English collectors, doubled; the English government's subsidy halved; and the lack of free trade limited the benefits of improvements in agricultural performance.61 Events in England were causing concern: the second sitting of the 1656 parliament, which met in January 1658, was chaotic, with republican 'Commonwealthsmen' such as Sir Henry Vane and Sir Arthur Hesilrige stirring up opposition to the

"See Burton's diary, ii, 207-11, 224. 61Barnard, 'Planters & policies', pp 63-4; idem, Cromwellian Ireland, pp 27-8,

29-30, 44-5,47-8.




Protectorate and challenging the new constitution; the death of Oliver Cromwell in September 1658 caused unrest; and the succession of Richard Cromwell was unpopular with the army.

In the midst of such turmoil, it was hardly surprising that the 1659 parliament's debate on Ireland's place within the 'Cromwellian union' was politically charged. From the very beginning of this parliament the Commonwealthsmen, seeking to undermine the Humble Petition and Advice and to remove Richard Cromwell as protector, questioned the right of the Irish and Scottish M.P.s to sit, exploiting a loophole caused by the Humble Petition's failure to make specific mention of returning M.P.s from the other two nations.62 This was a crucial issue, because in important votes on the constitution (such as moves to perpetuate the new House of Lords, known as 'the Other House') the Irish and Scottish M.P.s could ensure a government majority by voting as a bloc. The Commonwealthsmen's fear of Irish bloc-voting was realistic enough. As in 1654 and 1656, the ties between the Cromwellian r6gime and the Old Protestant M.P.s were strong. Henry Cromwell maintained his close links with Lord Broghill, Sir Hardress Waller and Sir Charles Coote, and between them these four men controlled much of the parliamentary patronage in Ireland. Broghill (now a member of the Other House) was a close confidant of the new protector: as his sister, Lady Ranelagh, reported in March 1659, Richard Cromwell was well known for 'telling him his thoughts with great freedom, and sending for him when he thinks [he] has need of advice'.63

As the debate on the M.P.s' rights became more heated in early March, the constitutional difference between Scotland and Ireland was laid bare. The pro-Cromwellian Scottish M.P. Dr Thomas Clarges found it easy to defend the rights of the Scottish M.P.s by reference to the union act ratified in 1657; but when he turned to Ireland he fell back onto rather weaker ground: 'They are united to you, and have always had an equal right with you. He that was king of England was king of Ireland, or lord. If you give not a right to sit here, you must, in justice, let them have a parliament at home. How safe that will be, I question.'64 This was the first time that the possibility of a separate Irish parliament had been mentioned, but with the implication that this was the worst option, for Ireland as well as England. As far as the future of the Irish M.P.s was concerned, the crucial debate took place on 23 March. The pro-union case was put forcefully by William Aston, the M.P. for Counties Meath and Louth, who emphasised that the 'interest [between

62This was an oversight. The fourth article of the Humble Petition drew up quali- fications for Irish M.Ps and Irish voters, with the intention that parliament would decide the number and distribution of seats separately (Acts & ordinances, Interregnum, ii, 1050-51); see Derek Hirst, 'Concord and discord in Richard Cromwell's House of Commons' in E.H.R., ciii (1988), p. 350. 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.

63Lady Ranelagh to earl of Cork, 15 Mar. 1659 (Chatsworth, Lismore MS 30, no. 99).

64Burton's diary, iv, 114.



LrTLE - Irish Protestant attitudes to union with England, 1653-9 55

England and Ireland] is twisted and complicated' and questioned the English right to tax Ireland without representation. He ended his speech with an offer that he thought the opposition would never accept: 'You will either refund our money to us and give us a parliament of our own, or else allow our possessory right [to sit at Westminster].'65 Yet Aston's ironic defence of the union backfired. The Commonwealthsmen chose to take him literally: John Weaver countered that he too 'would rather they should have a parliament of their own', and Thomas Gewen added 'It were better both for England and Ireland that they had parliaments of their own.'66 Remarkably, at this point the Commonwealthsmen were joined by an important Old Protestant voice, that of Arthur Annesley, M.P. for Dublin: If you speak as to the conveniency in relation to England, much more is to be said why they who serve for Scotland should sit here. It is one continent, and elections are easilier determined; but Ireland differs. It is much fitter for them to have parliaments of their own ... As you are reducing yourselves to an ancient constitution, why has not Ireland the same? ... Nothing hinders their restitution but the thirty members coming hither.

Annesley went on to point out the economic disadvantages to the Irish of English rule: assessments continued on a crippling level, and customs duties now stood at a rate far higher than that imposed by Wentworth in the 1630s. He ended his speech by repeating his call for separation: 'I pray that they might have some to hear their grievances in their own nation, seeing they cannot have them heard here.'67 Annesley's speech provoked uproar in the Commons. Hesilrige and others called for an adjournment, but a vote was forced through, and the government won by fifty votes, with Annesley acting as teller against the motion. The Irish M.P.s would continue to sit, and the government's majority seemed secure.68

The debate of 23 March 1659 has been seen as marking a turning-point in Anglo-Irish relations, with Annesley, acting as an Old Protestant spokesman, suggesting a new Irish parliament mainly in response to English failures to implement union legislation or to allow free trade and other economic benefits by other means.69 In this interpretation, Annesley's out- burst indicated a shift in Old Protestant politics, away from union and towards independence, a process which came to fruition in the Dublin Convention established in 1660. Yet, while there can be no doubt that Annesley was voicing common concerns about the economy, there is more to his speech than at first appears. By March 1659 Annesley had thrown in his lot with the crypto-royalists in the Commons, who had decided to support the Commonwealthsmen in the hope of bringing down the Protectorate and securing the return of Charles II. The crypto-royalist M.P.s had resolved to act as 'hypocrite Patriots' or 'Counterfeit Commonwealth-

65Ibid., pp 237-9. 66Ibid., p. 240. 67Ibid., pp 241-2. 68Commons'jn., vii, 619a; Burton's diary, iv, 242-3. 69Barnard, 'Planters & policies', pp 64-5; but see also idem, 'Protestant

interest', pp 237-8.




men', and Annesley joined them.70 In early March 1659 Henry Cromwell received reports that on the vote on the validity of the Other House 'Mr Annesley . . and several of great interest and reputation... in this vote upon another account fell in with the Commonwealth party who have notably bestirred themselves against the Petition and Advice'.71 Similar reports followed, and on 28 March Annesley openly sided with the Commonwealthsmen against the Other House.72 Annesley's speech on 23 March, calling for the withdrawal of the Irish members from Westminster and an end to the union, must be seen in this context. Rather than marking a change in Old Protestant attitudes from unionism to independence, it was an attempt to bring down the Protectorate by removing the Irish M.P.s - who formed a substantial section of Richard Cromwell's support in the Commons.73 Ironically, in pressing for the removal of the Irish M.P.s, Annesley highlighted the general loyalty of the Old Protestant community to the protectoral union. Other sources confirm this: an Irish petition of 1658 once again called for free trade and proportionate assessments on the Scottish model, as 'we [the English in Ireland] are one Commonwealth with England';74 and within weeks of the Irish debate of March 1659 Dr Dudley Loftus and other Irish M.Ps were conferring with Henry Cromwell in the hope that 'an act of union' could be included among 'several bills pre- pared for Ireland'." For the majority of the Old Protestants, the protectoral union was still worth defending.

It is interesting that the union controversy of March 1659 arose not from a debate on a union bill, but from a political spat about the sitting of Irish members as supporters of the government. The distinction is important. The

70R. Scrope and T. Monkhouse (eds), State papers collected by Edward, earl of Clarendon (3 vols, Oxford, 1767-86) (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 (PR.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. Mary Coate (Camden Society, 3rd ser., vol. 69, London, 1945), pp x-xi. For Annesley's later, pub- lic support for Charles II see [Arthur Annesley], England's confusion (London, 30 May 1659).

"Jerome Sankey to Henry Cromwell, 8 Mar. 1659 (B.L., Lansdowne MS 823, f. 247r).

72Sir 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 regi- cide Thomas Scott, to seek help from Annesley after the Restoration: see Thomas Scott to Annesley, n.d. [1660] (PR.O., C 108/188, pt 1, unfoliated: envelope marked 'Correspondence 2').

73The royalist agents realised the importance of Irish and Scottish support for the Protectorate: see Clarendon S.P, iii, 440.

74Cal. S.P. Ire., 1647-60, p. 699. 75Dudley Loftus to Henry Cromwell, 19 Apr. 1659 (B.L., Lansdowne MS 823,

f. 297r).



LrrLE - Irish Protestant attitudes to union with England, 1653-9 57

support for economic and legal reforms, voiced so loudly in 1654, had been diverted into a more political channel after the Humble Petition and Advice of 1657. In 1659 the focus of the debate was not on Ireland, but on the future of the Protectorate, and Annesley's call for constitutional separation was not typical of the majority of Irish M.P.s, who still saw the government as the best defence against the army and the religious radicals. This confidence would not continue for long. The collapse of the Protectorate in May, and the subsequent assumption of power by the army, brought an end to the government's promise of partnership within a united state: in July 1659, when the restored Rump Parliament appointed new governors for Ireland, they were named 'commissioners of the parliament of the Commonwealth of England for the affairs of Ireland'.76 'This nation' had once again replaced 'these nations' in the rhetoric of government. It was not until this point that the Old Protestants started, reluctantly, on the road which led to the Dublin Convention.77

IV

In conclusion, two specific points about the Irish union bills can be made with a degree of certainty. First, the content of each bill was very similar. In 1654 the debate surrounding the bill, and the survival of the Scottish version, provide sufficient evidence to suggest that there were four principal elements: the lifting of customs duties, the reform of the law-courts along traditional lines, the introduction of 'proportionate' assessments across the three nations, and the continuation of parliamentary representation at Westminster. The recurrence of such themes as customs and assessments in 1656 and 1659 suggest that the bills themselves were much the same in content. Second, it is fairly clear that this union legislation was not a government initiative alone, but something which commanded the support of the Old Protestant community as a whole. The issue of economic and legal reform preoccupied Irish circles in the mid-1650s; and Irish MPs such as Lord Broghill and Arthur Hill supported customs reform and presented a united front in the assessment debate in 1654. In 1656 a separate union bill was dropped in favour of the Humble Petition and Advice, which, with its attendant legislation, tried to accommodate the economic and political concerns of the promoters of union. In the face of attempts to undermine the new constitution in 1659, there was renewed enthusiasm by the Old Protestants and those around Henry Cromwell for a traditional union bill. In contrast, Lord Deputy Fleetwood was very much opposed to the legal reforms in the 1654 bill, and in 1659 it was English M.Ps (with the support of Annesley) who pushed for a separate Irish parliament.

76Acts & ordinances, Interregnum, ii, 1298-9. 77Roots, 'Union & disunion', pp 19-20; Aidan Clarke, '1659 and the road to

Restoration' in Ohlmeyer (ed.), Ireland from independence to occupation, pp 241-64; Barnard, 'Protestant interest', pp 238-9. Aidan Clarke, Prelude to Restoration in Ireland: the end of the Commonwealth, 1659-1660 (Cambridge, 1999) was unavailable at the time of writing.




Both the content of the successive union bills and Old Protestant support for them remained remarkably consistent throughout the 1650s. By contrast, the character of the union debate changed quite dramatically. The 1654 bill, with its concentration on domestic issues, provoked little reaction at Westminster. The 1656 bill caused more trouble because of its economic content, but this was nothing compared with the impact of its political suc- cessor, the Humble Petition and Advice. Once the Irish M.P.s had switched their support from one to the other, their domestic concerns became involved in factional controversies in Westminster, and in 1659 they were themselves the target of concerted attacks by English M.P.s. This progres- sion reflected the changing position of the Old Protestants through the decade: a barely tolerated minority in 1654, by the late 1650s they had become the allies and advisers of Henry Cromwell in Dublin and Oliver and Richard Cromwell in England. As a political and constitutional solution became more urgent, the economic reform of Ireland was in danger of being left behind. For men like Broghill, this distortion was a price worth paying for their increased influence at the centre of the Cromwellian r6gime, and, indeed, it seemed the only effective way to counter the army interest which had caused many of the Old Protestants' domestic problems in the first place. But the events of 1659 would show just how risky such a strategy was. By the end of that year an independent Dublin Convention had become an attractive alternative to involvement in a hostile English parliament at Westminster.78

PATRICK LITTLE

History of Parliament, London

78I 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. I would also like to thank the Trustees of the Chatsworth Settlement for per- mission to consult and quote from an item in the Lismore manuscripts.



the first unionists? irish protestant attitudes to union with england, 1653-9

Documents