Agrarian Class Structure Ireland

7/27/2019 Agrarian Class Structure Ireland

1/20

The Importance of Agrarian Classes: Agrarian Class Structure and Collective Action inNineteenth-Century IrelandAuthor(s): Samuel ClarkSource: The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 29, No. 1 (Mar., 1978), pp. 22-40Published by: Wiley on behalf of The London School of Economics and Political Science

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/589217.Accessed: 16/05/2014 09:26

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 of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wileyand The London School of Economics and Political Scienceare collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access to The British Journal of Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 131.96.196.23 on Fri, 16 May 2014 09:26:51 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lonschoolhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/589217?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/589217?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lonschoolhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black


2/20

BritishrournalfSociologyVolume9 JVumber AIarch978SamuelClark

Theimportancef agrarian lasses:agrarian lassstructure ndcollectiveactionin nineteenth-centuryrelandlA B S T R A C T

The purposeof thispaper is to eall attention o the importanee felassdivisionswithinagrarian opulationsorunderstandinggrarianeolleetiveaetion. To illustrate, he authordeseribesagrarianelassstruetureand eolleetiveaetion in Ireland during the nineteentheentury. n the earlypart of the eentury, herewas a socialeleavagebetweenoeeupyingtenantsand landowners,but therewas also aeleavageamongoeeupying enants hemselves. othtypesofeleavagehad a notieeableeffeet on the eharaeterof eolleetiveaetion. Sub-sequently,a major ransformationn the elassstrueture edueed heintensityof the soeial eleavage between large and small tenantfarmers, nd at thesame imetenant armers ecamenurnerieallyhelargestsoeialgroupin the rural soeiety,thuslaying the social basisfor eolleetiveaetionby this soeialgroup. There are two prineipalargumentsmade in thispaper: first,that agrarianpopulationsareoften splitinto distinguishableoeialclasses,whieh do not a11 harethe samebasis oropposingnon-agrarian litesand mayeven eomeinto eonflietwith one another;and seeond, that diSerentagrarianelassstruetures ive rise to differentkindsof colleetiveaetion.

In the past ten yearsthere has been a steadygrowth n researehonthe role that agrarianpopulations an play in the nationalpolitiealproeess. n mostof this iteraturehereferenee oint s therevolutionaryagrarian movement that is, a movement in whieh an agrarianpopulation ets as a 'class or tself'andtries o emaneipatetsmembersfrom hedomination fnon-agrarianlites.Theimportanee fagrarianelassstrueture n this proeesshas been reeognized,and it is usuallytreated n one of two svaysdependingon the questions hat are beingaskedandthe phenomenon hatis beingexplained.First, here s whatwe mightcall thenegative perspective n agrarianclasses.One may take an interest n agrarianclass divisionschieflybecause these divisionsseem to preventn


3/20

Themportancefagrarianlasses 23solidarity.This kind of argument s espbcially ommon n literatureon peasantsocieties.We frequentlyhear that peasantshave difficultygetting organized because they are too individualistic,are tied tolocal communalgroups, are regionally,ethnicallyand/or religiouslydivided,and have little meansof communicating vithone another.Similarly,class diffierencesan divide peasants nd prevent hemfromjoiningforcesagainst heiroppressors. or all of thesereasonspeasantsdo notusuallyunite as a singleclass.But undercertainconditions heymay.And there is an underlyingassumptionn this perspective hat,despiteall their differences, common nterestexistsamong peasantsand that this common nterestwould serve as the basisfor collectiveaction if only these differences,hese unfortunate bstacles o unitedaction,were not interfering.2Second, there is the tositiveerspective. t stresseshow agrarianclassescan play a dynamicrole in generatingand shapingcollectiveaction.A numberof writershavetried to identify he majoragrarianclasses,and they have argued hatdifferentkindsofpoliticalbehaviourcan be expected from each.3They may acknowledge hat agrarianclass divisions may impede collective action under special circum-stances.Yet the thrustof theirarguments thatruralclassdiffierentiationcreates ubgoupswhosemembers ave common nterestshat can serveas a basisfor politicalmobilization.4A{ostof the debate n this schoolhas centredaroundwhether he most revolutionary otential s to befoundamong the poorestagrarianclassesor amongso-called middlepeasants'.The purposeof this paper s to call still moreattention o the criticaleffect that agrarian class structurecan have on collective action.My view is that even those who have adoptedthe secondperspectivehave not given suflicientattentionto the dynamicsof agrarianclassstructures.When they talk about agrarianclasses, they are not somuch interested n classrelationswithin agrarianpopulationsas inclassifyingpeople into differentagrarian ypes in orderto determinewhich type is the most revolutionary r has the most revolutionarypotential.They have spent mostof their time analysingrelationshipsbetween grarianypesandnon-agrarianroups, specially on-agrarianelites.They have been mucll lessconcernedwith classconflictswithinagrarianpopulations hemselves.5In this paper I shallendeavour o illustrate he dynamierole thatagrarianclass structure played in generatingcollective action innineteenth-centuryreland. I shall describe he classstructurewhichthenprevailedn rural reland,usinga definition f classbasedprimarilyon the relationshipof people to land. The readerwill see hosv theclassstructure haped the characterof collectiveaction in each his-toricalperiod and how it gave rise to a varietyof collectivestrugglesbased on diSerentagrarianclasses.It will also be seen how a trans-formation n the class structureduring tlle centurybroughtabout a

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


4/20

-SamuelClark4significant hangein the character f collectiveactionand the foci ofagrarian onflict.

Theremustbesomething ither ntuitivelyappealing rideologicallyuseful n thenotionthat peasantshave anunderlying ommonnterest.This deahasdominatedhestorybook istoryofIreland.Religious ivi-sionshavebeenclearly ecognized, uttherehasbeenapopularmyth hatwithinthe Catholicagrarianpopulationa common nteresthasalwaysexistedand has providedthe basisfor an enduringstruggleagainstnon-agrarianlites.Popularaccountsholdthat, in the eighteenthandnineteenthcenturies,the rural Catholicpopulation oughtcontinu-ously to resistthe oppressionromwhich it sufferedat the handsofheartlessand mostly absentee andlords.The contestwas waged indiflSerenteriodsby diflSerenteople,but was alwaysessentially hesamestruggleby the sameCatholicpeasantry,whichhad lostits landto Englishconfiscators nd was now trying to regain it. In the earlynineteenthcentury,the battlewas fought by violent secretsocieties;in the mid-nineteenthcentury, it was representedby the TenantLeague;and thenin the late nineteenth entury, t culminated n thegreat Land War when the oppressorswere finally and deservedlyvanquished.

Lately, Irish historianshave come to recognizethat this popularstory greatly over-simplifies ineteenth-centuryural unrest. If oneexamines hisunrestcarefully,one findsthat it did not consistof onecontinuous truggle,but of a numberof different ollectiveeffortsbymembersof distinguishableocialgroupswithin the ruralpopulation,whose nterestswerenotidenticalandsometimes iametricallypposed.A good startingpoint for our discussion s rural class structureand collectiveaction in the firsthalf of the century, .e. beforetheGreat Famine. This class structurewas superficiallyvery simple.Rarelydid the occupierof a pieceof land hold it in fee; in the greatmajorityof cases, it was let to him by a landlord.Therewas, conse-quently, no substantialclass of owner-occupiers.t is temptingtothink of thesocietyas neatlydivided ntotwo classes ormedby thosewho ownedland, on the one hand,and thosewho occupied t, on theother.This is whatmostIrishmenhavebeentaught, but as historiansknowwhohavestudiedpre-famineocietymorecarefullyt is farfromthe truth.The socialcleavageexistingbetweenownersand occupiers,while very real, was no greaterthan the socialcleavagethat existedamongoccupiershemselves etween arge andholders ndwhat I shallcall the rural poor.First, the one was often the landlordof the other.The majorityof landlords n pre-famine relandwere not landowners: hey weretenantswithlargeholdings, ypically armerswhofound t profitableosubletportions ftheir and tosmalloccupiers itheron a permanent ron a seasonalbasis.Sublettingn oneformoranother ouldbefound nalmostall partsof the country.6A TrinityCollege urveyconductedn



5/20

The importancef agrarian lasses 5I843, for example,returneda total of over I2,000 tenantsoccupyinglands owned by the College, of whom less then one per cent helddirectly romthe College,while- 5 percent held froma College esseeand 52 per cent from still anothermiddlemanwho was a tenant to aCollege essee. As a resultof suchsubletting, ensions hatdeveloped nlandlord-tenant elationships uring hisperiodnot onlyput ownersatodds with occupiers,but also put-many occupiersat odds with oneanother.In fact, relationships etweenmiddlemenand their tenantswere by reputation ar worsethan thosebetween andowners nd theirtenants. This was primarilybecausesubtenantsenjoyed much lesssecurity of tenure than did direct tenants, and becausemiddlemenordinarily hargedat leastdouble the rent that they themselvespaidand oftenconsiderablymore.8Further ontributingo the socialcleavagebetween arge andholdersand the ruralpoor was the fact that mostof the latterworked or theformer.According o the I84I census, 70 per cent of the adult maleagriculturalabour forceconsistedof labourers.This figure includesmany adult farmers'sons working on family farms,and I wouldestimate hat excluding hem wouldreduce abourers o 56 per cent.9This is stillover half of the labour orce.Many labourerswere andless,but mostwere labourer-landholders.hey had cabins and small potatogardensand were oftenknownas 'cottiers'.n addition,both landlesslabourers nd labourer-landholdersrequently ook landon a seasonalbasis, a practice known as taking land in 'conacre'.Labourer-land-holdersmightbe forced o seekemploymentwherever hey could findit, but it wasnormal orthem to work orthe samefarmer romwhomthey obtainedtheir small holdings. In any case, the employerwasusuallya large farmer.During the pre-famine eriod the demand oragriculturalabourwas decliningwhile the supplywas rising,so thatemploymentwas inevitably insecure and poorly paid.l Relationsbetween armers ndlabourerswerefrequentlybitter.Finally, still anothersource of conflict between the two groupswas thediSerence n theirrespective ttitudes owardpasture arming.Grazingwaspreferred y largelandholders, specially n the post-warperiod when marketconditionsgave it relativeeconomicadvantagesovertillage.(Agriculturalrices n generalwere alling butit is possiblethat pricesfor tillage products ell moresharplythan did prices forgrasslandproducts and that the latter recoveredsooner.ll) Smallfarmersand labourers,on the other hand, dependedon the preser-vation of tillage land to find a place to grow theirpotatoesand foragricultural mployment.The widespreadhostilityamong the pooragainstgrazingand against armerswhospecializedngrazing ndicatesthat they were well awareof the dangerthat pasture armingrepre-sentedto their interests.Any description f the class structureof pre-famine r-elandwouldneed to emphasize ot onlythe cleavagebetweenownersand occupiers,



6/20

26 Samuellark

butlso the cleavagebetweenlarge landholdersand the ruralpoor.Objectively,hemajorelasses anbe defined n termsof theirrelation-shipo the prineipalmeallsof production, .e. land.We

can placepeoplento differentelassesdependingon (I) whetheror not theyeontrolledand and if so how muehof a workingday they spent onlandhat they eontrolled,whieh helps to distinguish monglandlesslabourers,abourer-landholdersndindependentandholders;2) howmuehand they eontrolled,which is the eriticaldifferencebetweensmallnd large landholders; nd (3) the natureof the control heyexercisedver land, which underlies he differeneebetweentenantsandwners.Usingtheseeriteria,we ean identifyat leastfive elasses:landlessabourers,labourer-landholders,mall independent

land-holderssmall armers),arge ndependentandholderslarge armers),andandowners.Within the large-farmer lass, we eould furtherdistinguishetweenthosewho employed abourand those who didnot.hisis animportantdifferenee, utnotnearly oimportant s thediffereneeetween heselargefarmersand smallfarmers. n termsoflifetyleandinterests,mallfarmershadmuehmore n eommonwithlabourer-landholdershanwith largefarmers.Bothsmallfarmers ndlabourer-landholderslsohadmueh neommonwith andlessabourers;indeed,he termlandlessabourer s rathermisleading

ineemanyoftheseabourersdependedfor their livelihoodon obtainingland ineonaeres well as on agrieultural mployment.Furthermore,hosewhoeretruly andless mostly armservants)wereusuallyrelatedbybloodo smallfarmersor labourer-landholders.ogether hesethreeelassesonstitutedwhat I have ealled the rural poor. Althoughtheirinterestsere by no meansidentieal,the diSerences hat separatedthemromoneanotherwerefarlessthanthedifferenceshatseparatedthemromthe large farmerson whom they depended or land andemployment. he large-farmer lass was

greatly outnumbered.Ifwe ake twenty aeresas the eut-offpoint for a small farmer,thenroughlyhree-quarters f the adult male agricultural abour forcebelongedo theruralpoor.l2Ofeourse,elassdiXerenees idnotdividethesoeietyinto diehotomous oeial strata.But these differencesdidhavea notieeable ffeeton pre-famine olleetiveaetion.We ean see this elearlyin eolleetiveviolence.Therewas a largeamountof violenee n pre-famine reland,muchof it by collectivitiesof people aeting togethereitherin erowdsor in ruralgangs.In itsmostdevelopedform, eollectiveviolence

was the work of so-calledseeret oeietieswhichexisted n mostpartsofthecountryundervariousnamessueh as the Whiteboys,Whitefeet,Carders,Rockites,MollyMaguires,TerryAlts,andmanymore.One objectiveof this violencewas to regulaterents and preventevictions.Agrarianeombinations epeatedlyendeavoured o protecttenants hreatenedwith losingtheirholdingsand to dissuade enantsfrom competingfor one another's and. Inevitably, the victims of



7/20

fAe importancef agrarian lasses 27assaultby thesegangs ncludednot only landlords, and agents,bailiffsand process ervers,but just as often tenantswho had taken and fromwhich the previousoccupant had been evicted.l3 According o onewitness before a Commonscommittee n I824, the usual target ofagrarian rimewas 'the property f the landlordwho had distrained rejecteda tenant, or the propertyof the tenantwho had succeeded heformeroccupant'.l4 t is not surprising hat land tenure should con-stitutea major oncern f participantsn pre-famine iolence.The mostuniversalproblem aced by membersof the ruralpopulationwas thatof gettingand keeping he land, a problem hat was becoming teadilymore serious n the years after the NapoleonicWars as a result ofover-population nd the deterioration f the Irish economy.But didthis violencerepresent collectiveassaultby the Irishpeasantry n thelandowning lass?The answervery clearly s that it did not. Much ofthis violence was a struggleby small farmersand labourersagainstlarge farmers.There are three types of evidence that point to this conclusion.First, the participants n pre-famine ollectiveviolence were dispro-portionatelydrawn from the labouringclass and less often from thefarmer lass,except or comparativelymall armers.l5 econd, armersweredisproportionatelyhe victimsof pre-famine iolence.l6And third,the demands hat violentgangsmade reflectedmost of all the interestsof small armers nd abourers.The Whiteboydisturbancesn the I 760'sbegan with the singlepurposeof levellingditcheserectedby landlordsandgraziers round ommons n whichsmall andholders ad formerlyenjoyed grazing rights. Their objectivessubsequentlybroadened oinclude he prevention f ejectment, utalso o represent uchgrievancesas low wages and unemployment.l7As the size of the labouringclassgrew in the early nineteenth century. concern for the interestsoflabourers ecameall the morenoticeable.One evidenceof this concernis the frequencywith which pre-famine iolenceconsisted f attacksonpasture arming:houghingcattle, diggingup grassland r threateningherdsmen.l8Rents n generalcameunderattack,but a specialemphasiswas given to conacre rents. A notice posted near Aughrim n I820stipulated he acceptableratesthat farmers ould chargefor differenttypesof land let in conacre.l9Moredemanding till was a noticepostedin CountyKildare n the I820'S warning armers o return heirunder-tenants o the head landlordat the same rates at which they held theland themselves.20n many cases outrageswere also aimed at regu-lating wages and preventing mployers romhiringstrangers.2lThis discussionhas not, by any means,covered he entire range intypes and motivations f collectiveviolence n the pre-famineperiod.The characterof this violence was aSected by other structuresn thesocietybesides he classstructure;most notably, t also bore the markof the religiousstructureand of communal tructures.But the effiectof class was immense.It was clearly manifested n the tendencyfor



8/20

28 Samuellarkperpetratorsf violenceto come mostlyfromthe ruralpoor and torepresentheir nterests.Many large landholders, or their part, also engaged n collectiveactions.et it is essentialto understand hat, in the cases I shallmention,heydidnotdosoontheirownbutrathern conjunctionwithpeopleelonging o non-agriculturalocialgroups.The resultwasthattheollectivedemands heymadedid not alwaysrepresent xclusivelytheirwninterests.Therewerethreemajorpoliticalmovementsn thepre-famineeriodandin all threemanyfarmerswereactive.In twoofthem,he Emancipation ampaignand the Repeal movement,thebulk f the leadershipcame from the Catholicurbanmiddle class,especially erchants ndmembers f theprofessions. othmovementswereeadedby DanielO'Connell.The firstwasaimedat winning orCatholicshe rightto holdhighjudicialandpoliticalposts(includingtheight ositinparliament),whiletheRepealmovementwasaimedatrepealf theActofUnionof I 800, whichhadunitedtheparliaments fIrelandndEngland.Obviously,neithermovementdirectly ought oimprovehe lot of the peasantry.Yet O'Connellwas able to stir upimmenseopular ympathynruralareas, specially uring heEmanci-pation ampaignwhenmanyruralpeoplewereableto participatebybecomingassociatemembers' f O'Connell'sCatholicAssociation

t acostof a pennya month.Nevertheless,herewas an unmistakable lassbias in the Emanci-pationmovement.The mostactivesupport amefromtownsandfromlarge armers. t wasstrongestn thoseparts of the country hatweremosturbanizedand wheretherewas comparativelyessruralpoverty(except hat it had virtuallyno support n the Protestantnorth-east).Committeesollectingdueswerebusiestandmostsuccessfuln Leinsterand east Munster,and hardly active at all in westerncounties.22Similarly, he electoral upport orthe Emancipation

ampaigncamefroma comparatively estricted ocial group.Electoralsupportwasthe leadingcontributionhat the ruralpopulationmade to Emanci-pation.The CatholicAssociationwas ableto mobilize he votesof theso-called'forty-shillingreeholders', large sectionof the electoratethatincludednotonlyowner-occupiersutalsotenantswhoheldtheirlandon leasefora termof lifeor livesandwerewillingto swearthattheirfarmswereworthfortyshillingsmorethan the rentreservedntheir leases.Since I793 Catholicas well as Protestant orty-shillingfreeholders ad enjoyed he rightto vote

in parliamentarylections,andhistorians aveestimatedhatby the I820'S theyconstituted bout8s,ooo of the totalelectorate f not muchmorethan I00,000 voters.23Somehistorical ccounts reatO'Connell'smobilization f manyforty-shillingfreeholders s a massuprisingof the Irishruralpopulation.In pointof fact,thesefreeholders erealleitherownersn feeorsecureholdersof long-termeases.Whiletheydefinitely epresented decisiveportionof the total Irishelectorate,what has too oftenbeenignored



9/20

Eheimportancef agrarian lasses 9is that theycomprised verysmallportionof all landholders some-thingin the neighbourhoodf I0 percent.24

TheothermovementwastheTitheWar,whichbrokeoutin theearlyI830'S immediatelyafterthe Emancipation ampaign.Here farmerswerethe mainsupporters. he objectivewas the abolitionof a tax onagricultural roducepaidto the establishedProtestant hurch.Titheswerenot a newgrievance.They had beenrepeatedlyunderattackbyruralsecretsocieties n the late eighteenthas well as the earlynine-teenthcentury.Whathappenedn the I830'S however,wasaltogethernew, constitutinga nationalmovementbackedby farmers,Catholicclergymen,and even some landowners.Rural supportcame fromboth argeandsmall armers, utdisproportionatelyrom arge armers,whowerearoused o activityby a decline n agricultural rices n theI820'S and by a legislativereformof tithe collection n I824, whichabolished he previousexemption or grasslandand its produce,anexemptionthat had spared many large farmerseither entirelyorpartially rompayment.25Duringthe Tithe Warruralsecretsocietiescontinuedto engagein theirvariousformsof violence,and not sur-prisinglyheycontinued oinclude heabolitionof tithesaspartoftheirdemands.But historiansagreethat therewas little directconnectionbetweenthe anti-tithemovementand the anti-titheactivitiesof thesecretsocieties.Indeed, the societiescontinued o lump demands orthe abolitionof tithestogetherwith demands orreductionsn otherpayments mall andholders adto meet,including herentstheypaidlarge armers.26heanti-tithemovement asdistinct rom heanti-titheactivitiesof the secretsocieties)was strongest n those parts of thecountrywherelargefarmersweremostnumerous,primarilyLeinsterand eastMunster.27The Tithe Waris of immensehistorical ignificancebecause t wasthe firstnationalmovement n Irelandby and forfarmers.Before hecenturyhad come to a close,thiswouldbe the predominantormofruralcollectiveaction n Ireland.In orderto explainthistransition,tis necessaryo understandhetremendousocialchanges hatoccurredduringandafter heGreatFamine.Population eclinedbymore hanathird between I84I and I88I. The averagesize of holdingsalmostdoubled.And therewas an important hiftin the basisof Irishagri-culturalproduction.Market orces avouringpasture armingresultedin a tremendous rowth n the livestockpopulationn the post-famineperiod.BetweenI847 and I876 the cattlepopulationroseby almost60 percent,whilethe sheeppopulation osebymorethan80 percent.Although arge andholderswerecertainly esponsibleormuchof thisincrease, malllandholders lsobecame nvolved n livestock arming,usuallyby breeding ivestock,whichtheysoldto largelandholdersorfattening.Thesechangeshad tremendous onsequencesorthe classstructure.First,therewasa substantial ecline n the practiceof sublettingand.

c



10/20

The practicestill remained,but as a resultof the fall in populationand the shiftfromtillageto pasture,argelandholderswereunder esspressureo sublet andto small andholders ndat thesametimewerelesswillingto do so. To illustrate,we can referagainto the TrinityCollegeestates,comparing sample of townlands n the early I840Swiththesametownlands round heyear I880. In thirty-sixownlandsthe proportion f tenantsholdingdirectlyeitherfromthe Collegeor

TABLE I Estimatesf relativeizeofagricalturallasses,84I and 88IEstimatedercentagef adultmaleAgricalturallass agricalturalabourorce

I84I I88I

Farmers and farmers' sons 42 60Farmers: over 50 acres 4 9Farmers: 2I-50 acres 9 I4Farmers: 20 acres or less I5 I7Farmers' sons I4 20

Labourers 56 38Labourer-landholders 30 I 2Landless labourers 26 26

Other 2 3Total number of adult males inagricultural labour force I,604,034 970n835

Sources:Reportf thecommissionersppointedo takehecensusf Irelandforheyear84I,p. 440; Appendixominatesf evidenceaken eforeIerMajesty'sommissionersf inquiryntothe tate f lawand racticen respectotheoccapationf landnIreland,. 288 (which givesthe poor-law return of the number and size of holdings in I844); and CensusfIrelandI88I: part i, generaleport,p. I08 and I99 [C 3365], H.C. I882, vol. 76.froma College esseerosefrom22 per cent to 60 per cent, while theproportionwho held from a middleman(who let fromthe Collegelessee)declined rom78 percent to 40 per cent.28Second, therewas a markeddecline in the numberof labourers.Table I provides stimates f the percentage f adultmales n variousagricultural lasses n I84I and I88I. According o thesefigures, hepercentageof the adult male agriculturalabourforcecomprisedbylabourersellfrom56 percentin I84I to 38 percentin I88I, whilethepercentage omprisedby farmersand farmers' onsrosefrom42 percentin I84I to 60 percentin I88I. The sharpest ropoccurred monglabourer-landholders;hey fell from30 per cent to I2 per cent, whilelandless labourersremainedsteady as a percentageof the adultmale agriculturalabour force. Unfortunately, hese estimatesmustbe treated with considerable aution, and in particular hey may

SamuelClark3o



11/20

Ehe mportancefagrarianlasses 3Iover-estimatehenumberof landlessabourersn I88I.29Yet it is clearthat landless abourersmust have constituted he majorityof post-faminelabourers.Moreover,even those who were not landlessnowdepended ortheir ivelihoodprimarily nwages,whichrosedramatic-ally in the post-famine erioddespite he shiftfromtillageto pasture.Thereremainedmportantdivisionsamongfarmers elated o vari-ationsin the sizeof holdings.As a resultof the declinein subletting,however, heywerenot dividedasmuchas beforento landlords ersustenants.Theywerenow n mostcases imply enantswhohadno under-tenantsandwhose andlordswerelandowners.n addition,whereasnthepre-famine eriod malland arge armers ifferedntheirrespectiveattitudes owardspasture arming,n thepost-famine eriodalmost heentiretenant-farmeropulationdepended o somedegreeon livestockforpartoftheir ncome,andthereexistedan extensiveystemof tradinglivestockbetween arge and smallfarmers. n contrastwith the pre-famine class structure,I would suggest that the class structureofpost-famine uralIrelandcouldbe described,n broadterms,as con-sistingof (I) landowners,2) tenantfarmers,and (3) labourers.Thelargestgroupwasnowthe second.Giventhis changein classstructure,one wouldexpect to find anincrease n collectiveactionrepresentingenantfarmers.Even beforethe Faminehad passed, hereemergedan organizedmovement alledtheTenantLeague,drawingts support romfarmers ndseekingrentreductions ndgreater ecurityof tenure.Although heTenantLeaguewas a spent orcebythe mid-fifties,t laythegroundwork orcontinuedactivity by combinationsof tenant farmers.Beginning n the mid-sixtiesandgradually ainingstrengthandnumbersn the I870'S, thereemerged ocal politicalassociations omposedof tenant farmersandclaimingto represent he interestsof this social group, By the lateI870'S, it is possible o findreferenceso somethirtyfarmers' lubsinthe country.When a seriousagriculturaldepressionoccurred n I 877-80, allsegmentsof the rural populationexperiencedhardship,includingperhapsmostof all labourers.Yet it wasonlyfarmerswho respondedwith large-scaleollectiveaction.Popular tories f theLandWarhavebeen responsibleorso muchof the mythologyof nineteenth-centuryagrarianunrestnotonlybecause hey have mistakenly sedthe LandWaras the prototypeof all thisunrestbut alsobecause hesocialbasisof the LandWaritselfhasbeenmisunderstood.t was not a massup-risingof theIrishruralpopulation. t wasspecifically tenant armers'movement. f welookat theoccupationalistributionofpersonsrrestedunderthe suspension f habeascorpus,and if we comparethis dis-tributionwith thatof thetotalmalelabour orce,we findthattheonlyagriculturalccupationsignificantlyver-representedere armers ndfarmers' ons,which togethercomprised5+ per cent of the suspects,whereas heymadeup 37 percentof themalelabour orce.Labourers



12/20

SamuelClark2weresubstantially nder-represexlted.hey constituted per cent of thesuspectsand 28 per cent of the total male labourforce.30This socialcompositionwas reflected n the aimsof the movement. conducted nanalysisof all resolutionspassed at a sample of I53 land meetingsreported n the JVation romJune I879 throughAugust I88I . I foundthat only 6 per cent of the resolutionsmadeany mentionof the interestsof labourers.3lThe majorityof resolutionswere concernedwith issuesdear to the hearts of tenant farmers, uch as rents, ejectmentsandland-grabbing.These issues were much the same as those raisedby the TenantLeague and by the farmers' lubs of the I870'S. Nevertheless, herewere critical differencesbetween the Land War and earlier tenant-farmerpolitical activity. The Tenant League and the farmers' lubshad a narrower,more elitist social base than did the LandWar. TheTenant League drew ts supportmainlyfrom arge farmerswho werereacting o a decline n agricultural ricesand poor crop yields n theI840'S (especially or wheat), which had made it acutely diEcult forthem to pay their rentsand had drivenmany into arrears.32nitially,the Tenant League was supportedby many Protestant armers nUlsterand for this reasonwas ratherunique.But the bulkof its supportcamefrom he samepartsof Leinster hat had been centresof anti-titheagitation n the I830'S. Similarly, he majority f the farmers' lubs ofthe I870'S were to be found in Leinster and east Munster. Theirmemberships onsistedprimarilyof large farmers, ypicallymen withmore than I00 acreswho were quite willing to referto themselves s'big graziers'.33This is a far cry from the class of farmers hat formed the socialbase for the Land War.By this I do not mean that largefarmers ailedto support he Land War; many played an active role. But the socialbase orthe LandWarwas muchbroader han t had beenforany of theearlierfarmers'movements. t drew its strongest upport rom thoseparts of the country where small landholderswere comparativelynumerous mainly western counties, and above all the province ofConnaught.Connaughthad experienced he same kindsof changes n the post-famine period as had the other provinces.As a matter of fact, thetransformationn classstructurewas evenmoredramaticn Connaughtthan in most other parts of the country;the proportion f the adultmale agriculturalabourforcewho were farmers r farmers' ons rosefrom an estimated38 per cent in I84I to about 74 per cent in I88I.34Similarly, he livestockpopulation ncreasedat a fasterrate in Con-naught duringthe post-famine eriod than it did in the countryas awhole.35Yet in Connaught,muchmorethan in mostotherpartsof thecountry,peopleremainedpoor. The socialchanges hat occurred fterthe Famine turnedmany small landholdersn the West into livestockbreeders,but it did not make them rich. The rural societywas now



13/20

Theimportancef agrarian lasses 33composedpredominantlyf farmers, utthey werepoorfarmers.Theyinevitably uffered romseveredeprivation uring hedepression f thelate I870'S.Unfortunately, herewas very little they could do to combat thesourcesof their difficulties, nd from a purely economic tandpoint tmightbehard ounderstandwhy so manychose heparticular ourseofactiontheydid. The rents hat mostof thesepoorfarmerswere payingwereso lowthatthe onlykindof reductionhatwouldhavehelped hemsignificantlywould have been beyond the meansof their landlords ogrant.Even a completeabolitionor rentswouldnot havebrought hemout of their distress.But from a political standpoint,their responseis mucheasier o understand. reductionnrents,whileonlymarginallyhelpful, was nevertheless n interestthat not just small farmersbutall tenantfarmersn Irelandshared n common.Mypurpose n notingthat the LandWardrewcomparativelyreater upportrom mall-farmdistricts has not been to argue that it exclusivelyrepresented heinterests of small farmers.The exclusive interests of this agrarianclasswouldhave been bestservedby a redistributionf land from argelandholders o small ones. Yet such a demand would have beenimpossible o achievebecause t wouldhave pittedsmall landholdersagainst argelandholders,who since the Faminehad formed he mostorganizedpolitical groupin the agrarianpopulation.Consequently,rather than challenging he interestsof large farmers, mall farmerstook up the very demands hat the Tenant Leagueandthe farmers'clubs had been making oryears. In my sampleof resolutions assedduring heyears 879 to I88I, I did not findone demand orthe breakupof largefarms.36Twentyyears ater the very realdifferencesn interests hat existedbetween argeand small armersinallycame nto theopen. In JanuaryI 898, after wo consecutiveearsof potato ailures, tenantorganizationwas formed n Mayo calledthe United Irish League(UIL). Initiallyat least, t drew ts supportalmostentirely rom smallfarmers n Con-naught, and its principaldemand was the breakupof large grazingfarms.UIL supportershallengedbig graziers n Mayoby interferingwith auctionsof grazing and, turningup pasture,boycottinggraziersand preventing mall farmers rom takinggrazing land for terms ofless than a year.37This kind of programme, owever,could be main-tainedonly aslong as theagitationwaslargelyconfined o the provinceof C:onnaught.When themovement xpanded nto otherdistricts, s itdid in the years I899-I900, its programmebroadened o include thetypical anti-landlordgrievances of the tenant-farmerpopulation.Demands for the breakupof large farmswouldre-emerge ater, buton thisoccasion,as in I879-82, shared nterestsprevailedand servedto unite large and small farmersagainst a common enemy. Thefruit of this alliance was the 'WyndhamAct' of I903, which at lastprovided erms or landpurchase hatprovedto be agreeable o both



14/20

SamuelClark34landlordsand tenants. Under this Act, and amending legislationenactedin I909, occupiersbecamethe ownersof morethan 3X6,oooholdingsby the early I920'S whennearlytwo-thirds f Ireland's otalareahad ceased o be theproperty f landlords.38t wasundeniablygreatvictory,but, as I havetriedto show, t wasa victoryby andformembers f a veryspecific ocialgroup n ruralIreland.Although hisgroup ncludedboth largeand smallfarmers,t did not includeover300,000agrieulturalabourerswhostilltoiled ora livelihoodntheIrishcountryside.The principalargumentof thispapercan be summedup verybrieflyas follows:agrarianpopulations reoftendivided nto different lasseswithdifferentnterests; heydo not, therefore, ll share hesamebasisforopposingnon-agrarianlitesand they can evencomeinto conflictwithone another.Obviously, he natureand numberof agrarianclassesvaries,andthere is no reasonfor assuming hat the particularclassesand classalliances ound n nineteenth-centuryrelandaretypical.Nevertheless,by utilizingothersourcesaswell as whatwe knowaboutIreland, t ispossible o makesomegeneral tatements.Wecanidentify everalbasicagrarianclassesand hypothesizehow these classescould potentiallycome into conflict.Again I shall defineagrarianclasses n termsofrelationshipso land.Most studieshave shown that large ndependentandholdersave aninterest in controllingthe commoditymarket,improvingterms ofcredit,limitingtaxation,and(if they are tenants)keepingdownrentsandsecuringenure.Smallndependentandholdersormallyhare hesameinterests,but in additionthey have an interest n the redistributionof land.Labourer-landholderssuallypursue ubsistencearmingon theirown holdings and so they have little direct interestin controllingthe commoditymarketor improvingermsof credit,thoughtheycer-tainlyhave an indirect nterest.Whattheyhave a direct nterest n islimitingtaxation,and (if they are tenants)keepingdown rentsandsecuringtenure.Like small independent andholders,abourer-land-holders lsohavean interestn theredistributionfland,butin additiontheyhavean interestn improvingwagesandworkingconditions, ndin reducingunemployment. he interests f landlessabourersre similarbut notidentical o thoseof labourer-landholders;heirmajornterestsare the redistribution f land, improvingwages and workingcon-ditions,andreducingunemployment.39I have tried to indicate n Table II how theseinterests an bringthe aboveclasses nto conflictwithone anotherandwith non-farmingelites.In eaeh cell in the upperrighthalfof the table, I have listedthemajor nterestshatmayset respective lassesat odds.Forexampleoppositionbetsveenarge ndependentandholders ndsmall ndepen-dent landholderss mostlikely,I suggest, o involveconflictoverland



15/20

///////// - rents and security - rents and security - rents/ / / / / / / / / of tenure of tenure of ten/ / / / / / / / / - taxes * - taxes - taxes/ / / / / / / / / - credit - credit - wages/ / / / / / / / /- control over - control over conditi/ / / / / / / / / commodity market conunodity market - unempl/ / /// //// - land redistribution - land

- Tithe War ///////// - rents- Tenant League / / / / / / / / / of ten- Fanners' clubs // / / / / / / / - land redistribution - wages- Land War / / / / / / / / / conditio- UIL // / / / / / / / - unempl//////// -land re

- Pre-farline violence ////////- Tithe War - Pre-fastune violence / / / / / / / // - land r- Land War - UIL (initially) /////////

- Pre-famine violence - Pre-famine violence ////////

- Pre-famine violence - Pre-famine violence

1* NON-FARMING LITES 2. L^RGE INDEPENDENT 3. SMALLINDEPBDEIANDROMEW DHOSES4. IABOU

1. NON-FARMING LITES

2. IARGE INDEPEN3ENTIANDHOLIDERS

3. SMALLINDEPEt}DENTLAl4DHO2EE

4. IABOURER-LANDROLDEM

5. I^ANDI4ESS ABOURERS



16/20

36 SamuelClarkredistribution,while opposition between large independent land-holdersand labourer-landholderss most ikelyto involveconflicts verone or more of the following:rents and securityof tenure,wages andworkingconditions,unemployment nd land redistribution.Whether the opposing nterests isted in each cell actually do setclassesat odds is, of course, a separatequestionand one that I canonly answerwith respect o nineteenth-centuryreland.In the cells inthe lower left half of the table, I have placed casesof collectiveactionoccurring n nineteenth-centuryreland according o the classes hatcame into conflict.The blankcells ndicatethat in nineteenth-centuryIrelandthere was little overt conflictamong small independent and-holders, labourer-landholders, nd landless labourers. Pre-faminecollective violence involved most of all a clash between labourer-landholdersand large independent andholders,but not exclusivelyand it can legitimately e placed n at leastfive othercells.The TenantLeague and the farmers'clubs fall into the cell that indicates theywere primarily ontestsbetween arge independent andholders nd anon-farming lite. Finally, he Tithe War, the Land War and the UILwere primarilystrugglesby both large and mall independent and-holdersagainstnon-farming lites. The goals of these ast three move-ments reflected he interests hat large and small independent and-holdershad in common,while tending o ignorethe issuethat dividedthem (land redistribution),xcept duringthe initial phaseof the UILmovement.The chief nterests hey shared n commonwere controllingrentsand taxes (especially ithes), and securing heir tenure.Althoughthe Land War came close to uniting all agrarian lasses, t did not infact do so, since t did not mobilizea significant umberof agriculturallabourers, ertainlynot a representative umber,and it failed almostentirely o represent heir nterests.

The corollaryof my principalargument an be summedup in thisway: diSerent agrarian class structuresgive rise to diffierent indsof collective action. To make this point, I could have comparedagrarianclass structureand collectiveaction in two separateplaces,say nineteenth-century reland and some other nineteenth-centuryagricultural ociety. Instead I tried to show how collective action inIreland changedover time with changes n the classstructure. n thecourseof the nineteenthcentury,agrarian ollectiveaction in Irelandmoved upwardand to the left in Table II. That is, in the pre-famineperiod the most common ype of agrariancollectiveaction involvedviolent conflictsamong differentagrarian lasses,whereas n the post-famine period the stage was occupied almost entirely by collectiveconflict between independent andholders nd the landowningclass.For a numberof reasons, he cleavages hat formerly ivided argeandsmall tenantfarmers ecame ess pronounced fter he Famine,and atthe same time tenant farmersbecame numerically he largestsocialgroup in the rural society, thus laying the social basis for collective



17/20

The importancef agrarian lasses 37action by them and on their behalf. The Land War, far from con-stituting the final assault n a holy war that the Irishpeasantryhadfought for generations, ccurredpreciselybecause the class structureunderwenta major ransformationhatrealigned ural nterests.As a finalword, et merestatemy belief n the importance f studyingagrarian classesand especiallythe relationsamong these classes.Iwouldgo sofar as to suggest hat divisionswithinagrarianpopulations,certainlyclassdivisions, hould nearlyalways be takenas a possiblepoint of referenceor analysingagrarianunrestbecause he socialbasisfor agrarian ollectiveaction s oftenprovidedby thesedivisions.Suchwasplainly hecase n nineteenth-centuryreland.Classdivisionswithinthe Irish agrarianpopulationwere not obstacles o collectivemobiliz-ation, but instead were the very basison which agrariancollectiveaction was built. This is the major essonthat can be learnt from re-vising the myth of the one long struggleby the Irish peasantry.

SamuelC7lark,.A., M.A., PH.D.AssistantProfessor,Departmentf SociologyUniversity f WesternOntarioNotes

I. A shorterversionof thispaper waspresented at a session of the annualmeetings of the American HistoricalAssociation,Washington,D.C., 28 Dec-emberI976.2. This perspectivecan be found inmany works,but it appearsmost expli-citly in Teodor Shanin, 'Peasantryas apolitical factor',Sociological eview, ol.I4, no. I (I966). See alsoTeodorShanin,7Che wkward lass: politicalsociology fpeasantryn a developingociety:RussiaI9I I925, Oxford, I 972. Althoughwriters ikeShaninare sharplycriticalofthe Marxistview toward peasants,thisperspectivenevertheless eflects an un-mistakableMarxist nfluence,or at leastthe influenceof one positionMarx tookwith respect to peasants, namely thatthey could be a class ln the sense ofsharing common economic conditionsand interests,but their abilityto act as aclasswas impededby their diversityandindividualism.See Marx'sfamousstate-ment on the French peasantry n TheEighteenth rumaire f Louis Bonaparte,New York, I963, pp. I23-4.

3. HamzaAlavi, Peasants nd revolu-tion' in Ralph Miliband and John

Saville (eds), 7Che ocialistegister,965,New York, I 965; Kathleen Gough,'Peasantresistanceand revolt in SouthIndia', PacifiicAgairs, vol. 4I, no. 4(Winter I 968-9); Eric Wolf, Peasantwars of the twentiethentury, ew York,I969; Henry A. Landsberger, Peasantunrest: hemesand variations',HenryA.Landsbergered.), Ruralprotest: easantmovementsnd ocial hange, ondon, 974;Rodolfo Stavenhagen,Social classes nagrarian societies, New York, I975;Jeffrey M. Paige, Agrarian evolution:socialmovementsndexportgriculturen theunderdevelopedorld,New York, I975; D.Frances Ferguson, 'Rural/urban rela-tionsand peasantradicalism: prelimin-ary statement', Comparativetudies inSocietyndHistory, ol. I8, no. I (JanuaryI 9 76) -4. Interestingly, his perspectivecanalsobe tracedto Marx,who argued hatrevolutionn the countrysidewouldoccurthroughan alliance between the urbanproletariat nd the ruralproletariat.Thelatter,he claimed,wasemerging hroughthe development f capitalistagricultureand the disappearanceof the small-holdingpeasantry.A similar, houghnot



18/20

38 SamuelClarkidentical, argumentwas made later byLenin and then Mao, both of whomplaeedgreat emphasis n the revolution-ary consequences f class differentiationwithin the peasantry.Whateveragrarianclass one believes o be the most revolu-tionary, the idea that rural class differ-entiation promotes revolution in thecountryside Ioesowe something to theMarxist tradition. For one thought-provoking study of this tradition, seeDavid Mitrany,Marxagainst hepeasant,North Carolina, I95I, especially pp.7-23, 43e5. Often intentionally.See Ferguson,'Rural/urban relations and peasantradiealism',p. I I4.

6. Harold T. Masterson, 'Land-usepatternsand farmingpractice n CountyFermanagh,I609-I845', Clogher ecord,vol. 7, no. I ( I 969), p. 78; Patriek G.Dardis, Eheoccupationf land n Irelandnthe irsthalfof thenineteenthentury,ublin,I920, p. 43; andJames S. Donnelly, Theland and the people of nineteenth-centuryCork: herural conomynd he andquestion,London,I975, p. I4@7. Most of the College lessees wereland agents, lawyers, relatives of land-ownersor Protestant lergymen, ut mostmiddlemen under College lessees werefarmers.The souree is T.C.D., TrinityCollege papers: Descriptive urvey andvaluation of the Trinity College estate,I845 (Muniments/V/Series 78/46-6 I ) .The lands covered by this survey weresituated n sixteendifferent ountiesandrepresented just over Igs,ooo acres,mostly in the South-west and North-west. In addition, some 3s,ooo acres ofland were owned by the Provostof theCollege.Virtuallyall the land was let toCollege lesseeson long leases of twenty-one years renewableyearly. For furtherexplanation of this survey, see F. J.Carney, 'Pre-famine Irish population:the evidence from the Trinity Collegeestates',IrishEconomicndSocialHistory,vol. 2 ( I975) For an examination oflandlord-tenant relationships on theestate during the last half of the nine-teenth century,see W. J. Lowe, 'Land-lord and tenant on the estate of TrinityCollege, Dublin, I85 - I903', Herma-thena, o. I20 (Summer 976).

8. Isaac Weld, Statisticalurvey f thecountyof Roscommon,ublin, I 832, p.323; Dardis, The occupationf land inIreland,p. 42-3; Masterson, Land-usepatterns n Fermanagh', . 78.9. This estimate s obtainedby assum-ing that the ratio of adult farmers' onsto farmerswas the same in I84I as itwas in I88 when farmers'sons werelisted separately.Making this assump-tion, I have estimatedthat there were226,658 adult farmers' sons in I84I,which represents I 4% of the adultmale agricultural labour fource. Thesource is Report of the Commissionersappointedo take hecensus f Irelandforheyear I84I, p. 440, House of Commons(hereafter cited as H.C.) I843 (504),vol. 24.

I0. Donnelly,Cork,p. I6-23.II. Raymond D. Crotty, Irish agri-culturalroduction:ts volume ndstructure,Cork,I966, pp.35-6,287-93.I2. See below, Table I. This figure s

obtained by adding the percentage oflabourers o the percentageof farmerswith twenty acres or less, and thenassuming hat at least half the farmers'sons were on holdingsof twentyacres orless. I do not mean to imply that wewould want to call every farmer withmore than twentyacresa 'large armer'.Any acreage cut-off point is, of course,suspect, since it makes a distinctiondichotomous hat is actually continuousand because all acres are not equallyproductive. Twenty acres has beenselected for reasonsof convenienceandnot becauseI can claim it represents neconomic hreshold. t may be better,asEmmet Larkin suggests, to use thirtyacres as the cut-off point, but it is notuntil I847 that we get good data on thenumberof holdingsover thirtyacres.SeeEmmetLarkin, Church, tateand nationin modern Ireland', American istoricalReview, ol. 80, no. 5 (December 975).I3. See extractsprovided by GeorgeC. Lewis of a police report listing out-rages committed n I834 in the Garry-castle district in I(ing's County. Themost common demand was that peoplegive up their land. GeorgeC. Lewis, Onlocal disturbances,nd the Irish churchquestion, ondon,I836, pp.230-I.



19/20

The importancef agrarian lasses 39I4. First reportrom the sclect ommittceon districts f Ireland nder heInsurrection

Act,p. 8, H.C. I824 (372), vol. 8.I 5. Lewis,Local isturbances,p. I 82-5.I6. Joseph Lee, 'The Ribbonmen',T. DesmondWilliams (ed.), Secret ocie-ties of Ireland,Dublin, I973, p. 29.I7. MaureenWall, 'The Whiteboys',ibid., pp. I3-I4I8. See references o such activities nFirst eportfromhe elect ommittce,p. 4-7;Peter Gorman,A report f theproceedingsundera specialcommissionf Oyer and

Terminern the counties f LimerickndClaren . . . I 83I, Limerick, 83 I; and innewspaper eports n the DublinEveningPost, 2 March I827, p. 3; 3 April I827,p. 6; 5 April I 827, p. 4; 6 August I 829,p. 3; 5 September 829, p. 2; 3 March83I, P 3I 9. S.P.0., State of the countrypapers I820/2I88/I0).20. Lewis,Localdisturbances,. 22I. Afull text of this notice can also be found

in James S. Donnelly, Landlord ndtenantn nineteenth-centuryreland,Dublin,I 973, p. 3 . A portion of it is alsoquoted n Lee, 'The Ribbonmen',p. 29.

2I . First reportrom theselect ommittee,p. g; Lewis,Localdisturbances,. I02. Fornewspaper eportsof attackson strangelabourers, see Dublin EveningPost, I 0October I 827, p. 3 and I 5 July I 845,p. I.

22. For the year I827, as an example,the CatholicAssociation eported eceiptstotalling close to I3oo from Leinster(particularlyrom Dublin, Meath andLouth), approximately I200 fromMunster (mostly from Cork,Tipperaryand Waterford),but little more than200 from Connaught (mainly fromGalway and Mayo). In addition,some200 were received from Ulster. SeeConnaughtournal,3 March I828, p. 3.See also James Reynolds, The CatholicEmancipationrisis n Ireland,82>I829,New Haven, I954, pp. 62-3. One area nthe West where the movement wasstrongwas O'Connell'shome county ofKerry.

23. Gearoid () Tuathaigh, Irelandbefore he Famine, 798-I 848, Dublin,I 972, p. 7 b

24. In I 844 the numberof landholders

was reported as 935,448, includingthose with less than one acre. SeeAppendixo minutes f evidenceakenbeforeHer Majesty's ommissionersf inquiryntothestateof law andpracticen respecto theoccapationf land n Ireland, t. iv, p. 288[672], H.C. I845, vol. 22.

25. Patrick O'Donoghue, 'Causesofopposition to tithes, I 830-38', StudiaHibernica,o. 5 ( I 965), especially pp.I6 - I9.

26. Angus Macintyre, The Liberator:DanielO'Connellnd heIrishParty, 830I847, New York, I 965, pp. I 78 80;Patrick O'Donoghue, 'Opposition totithe payments in I 830-3 I ', StdiaHibernica,o. 6 (I966), pp.9I-2.27. O'Donoghue, Opposition o tithepayments',pp. 75, 79-80.

28. The data for the early 840'S comefromthe Trinity Collegesurveyand thedata for c. I 880 from the ValuationOffice, Land valuation records. Thesample included nineteentownlands nKerry, three in Limerick,five in Tip-peraryand nine in Longford.Altogethertherewere 3,3I9 tenantsin the samplefor the early I 840XS and 2,o7s in thesample or c. I880.

29. There are a numberof problemswith the figures in Table I. They areobtained by combining occupationalreturnswith data on size of holdings.In order o do this, we must assume hatthe largest landholdingswere occupiedby farmers. And, in order to avoidincluding he wives,daughters nd youngsons of landholders among landlesslabourers,we are forcedto restrictour-selves to the adult male labour force,whichmeans that we must assume hatall landholderswere adult males. Theexceptionswould be few; nevertheless,we can be certain hattherewere at leastsome cases that violated these assump-tions. Furthermore, encountered eri-ous problems n tryingto determine henumberof labourersand adult farmers'sons. The number of farmers'sons inI88I iS given in the census,but, as thereaderalreadyknows, or I84I I had toestimatethe numberof adult farmers'sons since they were included withlabourers.This also meant that I had toestimate the number of labourers. I



20/20

SamuelCAlark4oIrishsociety, 84&I9I 8, Dublin, I 973,PP 39-40.33. Limerick eporter,8 June I878,P 334. Reportf thecommissionersppointedto take hecensusf Irelandforheyear84I,p. 430; and Censusf Ireland88I: part... vol. iv, provincef Connaught,. 623[C3268],H.C. I882,vol.79. The methodofcomputationwas thesameas describedabovein note 29.35. Censusf Irelandforheyear 85I:part i, agriculturalroduce,. xxxvii,H.C.I 852-3 ( 589), vol. 93; Agriculturalstatisticsf Irelandor the ear 876, p. 55[C I 749],H.C. I 877, vol- 85-36. I did Snd severalreportsof landmeetingsnot in my sample at whichresolutionscalling for the breakupoflargefarmswere passed.We alsoknowofsomeattackson graziersn Connaughtduring the winter of I 879-80. Landredistribution as favouredby manyinthe movement, including not only agreatnumberof small farmers,but alsoimportantindividuals n the nationalleadership. It was, however, alwaysplayeddown,especially t landmeetings,in orderto avoid alienatingthe large-farmelement.37. Connaughtelegraph,3 May I 899,p. I; 8 July I 899,p. 2; I 9 August 899,p. 5; I O MarchI 900, p. 2.38. Donnelly,Cork, . 384.

39. This summary is based on anumberof studies,thoughI would notclaim that all of the followingauthorswouldagreewithwhatI havedone. See,inparticular,ArthurStinchcombe,Agri-cultural enterprise and rural classrelations',Americanfournal f Sociology,vol. 67, no. 2 (September 96 ); Alavi,'Peasants nd revolution';Gough,'Pea-sant resistance and revolt in SouthIndia';ShepardForman, Disunityanddiscontent:a study of peasantpoliticalmovements n Brazil', Sournalof LatinAmericantudies,ol. 3,no. I (MayI 97 );JamesPetrasand H. Z. Merino,Peasantsin revolt: Chileanase tudy,965-I97I,Austin,Texas, Ig72;Stavenhagen, ocialclasses n agrarian ocieties; nd Paige,Agrarianevolation.

arrived at 56% by subtraeting myestimateof the numberof farmers' onsfromthe total numberof labourersre-turned.For I88I I had difficultyesti-mating the numberof labourers or adiffierent reason: many agriculturallabourersound heirway intoa separatecensus ategory alled generalabourers'.I assumed hat two-thirds f thesewerefarm labourers,and included them inthe above table among labourers(andamongthe totalnumberof adult malesin the agricultural abourforce).Yet ithas to be admitted hat I am, as a result,slightly over-estimatinghe numberoflabourers in I 88 I . To estimate thenumberof labourer-landholders,simplysubtractedthe number of adult malefarmers romthe total numberof land-holders (includingthosewith less thanone acre); and to get the number oflandless labourers I subtracted theselabourer-landholders rom the totalestimatednumber of labourers.Whatthe over-estimation f the number oflabourers n I88I distorts,therefore, sthe estimateof the numberof landlesslabourers.The reader houldalsobe toldthat I have included herdsmen,shep-herds, ploughmen, and farm servantsalong with agricultural abourers;andthat 'adult'means those-fifteen ears ofage and older.30. Samuel Clark, 'The social com-position of the Land League', IrishHistoricaltudies,ol. I 7, no. 68 (Septem-ber I97I), p. 455. The readershouldnotethat I amhereusing the totalmalelabour oreeas the base,rather han theadult male agriculturallabour force.Amonglabourers haveincludedherds-men,shepherds,arm ervants ndall un-specifiedor 'general'abourers, ot all ofwhom would actually be agriculturallabourers.3 . I generouslyincluded not onlyresolutionsmaking any reference toimproving he welfareof labourers,butalso resolutionsmaking demandsthatwould be in the interest of labourers(suchas publieworks),evenif labourerswerenot explicitlymentioned.32. Joseph Lee, The modernisationf

Agrarian Class Structure Ireland

Documents

Transcript of Agrarian Class Structure Ireland