Depopulation of Ireland

Exile 1798

I've heard the claim a number of times that in the years before an Gorta Mór, that the population of Ireland was 8 million and the population of England was 12 million. This is then usually contrasted with today's population of Ireland, 5 million, and England, 50 million.

This is a claim that obviously has Nationalist overtones. So I'm wondering do any of the history heads in here know the facts of it?

I've never read anything solid as far as evidence goes, and haven't been able to come up with anything with google. What I was looking for in particular was any census figures from the time preceding the Famine.

Flamed Diving

Exile 1798 wrote: »

I've heard the claim a number of times that in the years before an Gorta Mór, that the population of Ireland was 8 million and the population of England was 12 million. This is then usually contrasted with today's population of Ireland, 5 million, and England, 50 million.

This is a claim that obviously has Nationalist overtones. So I'm wondering do any of the history heads in here know the facts of it?

I've never read anything solid as far as evidence goes, and haven't been able to come up with anything with google. What I was looking for in particular was any census figures from the time preceding the Famine.

From Cormac O'Grada:

http://irserver.ucd.ie/dspace/bitstream/10197/455/3/ogradac_article_pub_092.pdf

the end of page two, 8.5 million is stated.

Exile 1798

That was quick! I guess it's true what they say, seek and ye shall receive.

Thanks a lot.

InTheTrees

Exile 1798 wrote: »

I've heard the claim a number of times that in the years before an Gorta Mór, that the population of Ireland was 8 million and the population of England was 12 million. This is then usually contrasted with today's population of Ireland, 5 million, and England, 50 million.

This is a claim that obviously has Nationalist overtones. So I'm wondering do any of the history heads in here know the facts of it?

I've never read anything solid as far as evidence goes, and haven't been able to come up with anything with google. What I was looking for in particular was any census figures from the time preceding the Famine.

Its an interesting question that I dont know the answer to.

I'd be fascinated to know the population numbers at the various pivotal times in Irish history.

I think I remember reading once that the population was under a million at the time of the black death.

Flamed Diving

InTheTrees wrote: »

Its an interesting question that I dont know the answer to.

I'd be fascinated to know the population numbers at the various pivotal times in Irish history.

I think I remember reading once that the population was under a million at the time of the black death.

Check it out for yourself, here are estimates by Angus Maddison:

http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/Historical_Statistics/horizontal-file_02-2010.xls

from:

http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/

I probably don't need to mention that estimates are not fact.

Anyway, the estimate for Ireland in 1500 is 800,000 people.

Exile 1798

Reading the first Cormac O'Grada link you provided, that 8.5 million figure doesn't have a footnote attached directly to it. However for other figures he quotes about numbers of workers he compares 1841 and 1851 Census reports. I assume the 8.5 figure comes from these same censuses.

O'Grada being a respected historian I can now accept the 8.5 million pre-Famine population as fact.

Flamed Diving

Graph of the above data.

Anyway, I'm sure there are many other sources for that 8.5 million figure. It seems to be accepted fact.

SlabMurphy

I've heard that one of the effects of gross poverty is that the parents tend to have larger families in the thought that their will be some/more to look after them as they get older. This is common in today's third world countries and was the norm in emerging countries like India and Brazilian a few decades ago.

My point been that this maybe the reason for the huge increase of population in Ireland from the passing of the Act of Union in 1800 which destroyed whatever economy we had and means of keeping some wealth in the country, to 1847 ?

Flamed Diving

SlabMurphy wrote: »

I've heard that one of the effects of gross poverty is that the parents tend to have larger families in the thought that their will be some/more to look after them as they get older. This is common in today's third world countries and was the norm in emerging countries like India and Brazilian a few decades ago.

My point been that this maybe the reason for the huge increase of population in Ireland from the passing of the Act of Union in 1800 which destroyed whatever economy we had and means of keeping some wealth in the country, to 1847 ?

No, it's a bit more nuanced than that. I recommend looking into Malthusian Population Mechanics and any research done on the effect of introducing the potato to Western Europe.

existential

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Graph of the above data.

Anyway, I'm sure there are many other sources for that 8.5 million figure. It seems to be accepted fact.

The graph is flawed as it seems to show Ireland 32 counties before 1920 and 26 counties after that date.
The real population of Ireland (32 Counties) is currently slightly over 6 million similar to what it was in 1850 after 2.5 million died and emigrated.

Flamed Diving

existential wrote: »

The graph is flawed as it seems to show Ireland 32 counties before 1920 and 26 counties after that date.
The real population of Ireland (32 Counties) is currently slightly over 6 million similar to what it was in 1850 after 2.5 million died and emigrated.

Yeah, but sure the XLS file is there, so feel free to update it and provide a more accurate graph.

SlabMurphy

Flamed Diving wrote: »

No, it's a bit more nuanced than that. I recommend looking into Malthusian Population Mechanics and any research done on the effect of introducing the potato to Western Europe.

Done a google on it and found this which is well, a bit technical for a simple taxi driver to be bothered discyphering. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_growth_model

You also mention " the effect of introducing the potato to Western Europe ". How come the other countries of Europe where the potatoe was introduced didn't appearently experieince the same as Ireland ?

existential wrote: »

The graph is flawed as it seems to show Ireland 32 counties before 1920 and 26 counties after that date.
The real population of Ireland (32 Counties) is currently slightly over 6 million similar to what it was in 1850 after 2.5 million died and emigrated.

Good point, it does indeed seemed to be flawed. That big dip around 1920 seems to be due to considering only ' Ireland ' population in the 26 counties.

Flamed Diving

SlabMurphy wrote: »

Done a google on it and found this which is well, a bit technical for a simple taxi driver to be bothered discyphering. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_growth_model

Ok, well it really isn't that hard to get. Let's start with an agrarian population, growing just one crop. They are all living on subsistence level, meaning that they grow enough to feed themselves, and that's about it. So now we introduce a new technology to this community (a new seeding technique) which increases the yield of food they produce each year. So now everyone has a bit more to eat, and move beyond subsistence living. But increasing health might also decrease infant mortality, reduce miscarriages, increase life expectancy, etc. This will cause the population to grow. We still have a fixed amount of land, with our new technology and our one type of crop. So as the population increases, everyone's share of the food decreases, until we are back at subsistence level again, birth rates drops, death rates increase, but we still have levelled out at a slightly higher population.

SlabMurphy wrote: »

You also mention " the effect of introducing the potato to Western Europe ". How come the other countries of Europe where the potatoe was introduced didn't appearently experieince the same as Ireland ?

So, taking the above into account, in Ireland's case, the vast majority of the rural poor relied on just one "technology", and that was the potato. For around 40% of Ireland's pre-famine population the diet mainly consisted of potatoes and some dairy (sometimes a little meat, but not regularly), both providing enough nutrients to live on comfortably. An acre of land can hold a family of 8, growing just potatoes and a dairy cow, and this is exactly the type of situation we see happen in pre-famine Ireland.

Remember from above, introducing the potato would have increased the living standards of those who grew it, and the population would have expanded greatly due to this. But as the model shows, this is short-lived, and soon this expanded population will return to subsistence.

It was like a bomb, waiting to go off.

SlabMurphy wrote: »

Good point, it does indeed seemed to be flawed. That big dip around 1920 seems to be due to considering only ' Ireland ' population in the 26 counties.

But is it fair to exclude the six counties in the whole graph?

SlabMurphy

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Ok, well it really isn't that hard to get. Let's start with an agrarian population, growing just one crop. They are all living on subsistence level, meaning that they grow enough to feed themselves, and that's about it. So now we introduce a new technology to this community (a new seeding technique) which increases the yield of food they produce each year. So now everyone has a bit more to eat, and move beyond subsistence living. But increasing health might also decrease infant mortality, reduce miscarriages, increase life expectancy, etc. This will cause the population to grow. We still have a fixed amount of land, with our new technology and our one type of crop. So as the population increases, everyone's share of the food decreases, until we are back at subsistence level again, birth rates drops, death rates increase, but we still have levelled out at a slightly higher population.

So, taking the above into account, in Ireland's case, the vast majority of the rural poor relied on just one "technology", and that was the potato. For around 40% of Ireland's pre-famine population the diet mainly consisted of potatoes and some dairy (sometimes a little meat, but not regularly), both providing enough nutrients to live on comfortably. An acre of land can hold a family of 8, growing just potatoes and a dairy cow, and this is exactly the type of situation we see happen in pre-famine Ireland.

Remember from above, introducing the potato would have increased the living standards of those who grew it, and the population would have expanded greatly due to this. But as the model shows, this is short-lived, and soon this expanded population will return to subsistence.

It was like a bomb, waiting to go off.

Ah yes, it's blame the victim time again :rolleyes: and sure no one deserves more than the Irish. Interesting, in his whole analysis he didn't once mention Britain, it's landlord system, it's laws, unfair trading practises etc as a cause of the famine. Nor that Ireland was an exporter of food to the ' mainland ' before, during and after the famine.

" For around 40% of Ireland's pre-famine population the diet mainly consisted of potatoes and some dairy (sometimes a little meat, but not regularly), both providing enough nutrients to live on comfortably. "
Well now, doesn't this just about sum up his agenda :rolleyes:

But is it fair to exclude the six counties in the whole graph?

Because the graph ( did you develop it BTW ? ) gives the misleading appearence that all 32 counties of Ireland population rapidly declined with the superior, benevolent British leaving the 26 to the natives. Ah yes, your agenda is quite clear now Mr. Paisley.

Flamed Diving

SlabMurphy wrote: »

Ah yes, it's blame the victim time again :rolleyes: and sure no one deserves more than the Irish. Interesting, in his whole analysis he didn't once mention Britain, it's landlord system, it's laws, unfair trading practises etc as a cause of the famine. Nor that Ireland was an exporter of food to the ' mainland ' before, during and after the famine.

" For around 40% of Ireland's pre-famine population the diet mainly consisted of potatoes and some dairy (sometimes a little meat, but not regularly), both providing enough nutrients to live on comfortably. "
Well now, doesn't this just about sum up his agenda :rolleyes:

Because the graph ( did you develop it BTW ? ) gives the misleading appearence that all 32 counties of Ireland population rapidly declined with the superior, benevolent British leaving the 26 to the natives. Ah yes, your agenda is quite clear now Mr. Paisley.

Yawn.

SlabMurphy

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Yawn.

:rolleyes:

Flamed Diving

If any reasonable person would like to know more about the literature behind such logic, a paper is linked below:

http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/nunn/files/Potatoes.pdf

A snippet from Section 2A:

From a nutritional standpoint, there are two primary reasons why the potato is superior to other staple crops. First, because potatoes contain nearly all important vitamins and minerals, they support life better than any other crop when eaten as the sole article of diet (Davidson, Passmore, Brock, and Truswell, 1975, Reader, 2008). Humans can subsist healthily on a diet of potatoes,
supplemented with only milk or butter, which contain the two vitamins not provided for by potatoes, vitamins A and D (Connell, 1962, Davidson et al., 1975). This, in fact, was the typical Irish diet, which although monotonous, was able to provide sufficient amounts of all vitamins and nutrients (Connell, 1962).

Enjoy reading!.

Fratton Fred

Weren't the priests telling everyone to go forth and multiply as well? I thought that had a big hand in the population boom as well.

Out of curiosity, are there any estimates at how many people died in the famine as opposed to how many emigrated?

InTheTrees

And how about the numbers from before 1500?

For instance what were the effects of the various plagues on population?

Flamed Diving

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Weren't the priests telling everyone to go forth and multiply as well? I thought that had a big hand in the population boom as well.

Out of curiosity, are there any estimates at how many people died in the famine as opposed to how many emigrated?

The estimates are 1m emigrated and 1m died. Google "O'Grada famine estimates" and have a dig around.

Flamed Diving

InTheTrees wrote: »

And how about the numbers from before 1500?

For instance what were the effects of the various plagues on population?

I provided a link to the data I used. I am unaware of any other dataset online.

bog master

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Check it out for yourself, here are estimates by Angus Maddison:

http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/Historical_Statistics/horizontal-file_02-2010.xls

from:

http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/

I probably don't need to mention that estimates are not fact.

Anyway, the estimate for Ireland in 1500 is 800,000 people.

Thanks for the links, but seeing as there appears to be nil people in Ireland in 1 AD up to 1000AD, what happened to those who built Newgrange, Loughcrew, Ceide Fields etc?

Flamed Diving

bog master wrote: »

Thanks for the links, but seeing as there appears to be nil people in Ireland in 1 AD up to 1000AD, what happened to those who built Newgrange, Loughcrew, Ceide Fields etc?

1) Does it say zero?

2) Why are you asking me?

bog master

Flamed Diving wrote: »

1) Does it say zero?

2) Why are you asking me?

Good evening! You posted the link, and would assume you would be reasonably familiar with what you posted.

No, does not say zero, just not data in the box for Ireland!

Flamed Diving

bog master wrote: »

Good evening! You posted the link, and would assume you would be reasonably familiar with what you posted.

No, does not say zero, just not data in the box for Ireland!

Sorry, I am a tad tired and cranky. No data in the box just means there is no estimate for that time/country. The data doesn't suggest that 800,000 people just popped out of nowhere in 1500. As far as I can see, any population figures before the 1800s are simple, rounded figures, making them educated guesses, at best. But like I said, I know of no other population database.

CDfm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Weren't the priests telling everyone to go forth and multiply as well? I thought that had a big hand in the population boom as well.

that is a very interesting topic in its own right

was there contraception in those days

Out of curiosity, are there any estimates at how many people died in the famine as opposed to how many emigrated?

It is generally accepted that the figures for each was between 1 to 1.5 million.

The population was 8 m or so in 1841 and 6.5m in 1851

It was the great famine and there were others from 1740/41 onwards

It is difficult to put exact figures on it but you have sites like below that use figures from the higher range - whichever you use the figures were massive

* Deaths between 1.0 and 1.5 Million Famine-related deaths



* Emigration: Between 1.5 and 2.0 million Irish left Ireland due to the Famine



* Evictions: Between the years 1849 and 1867 109,000 families were evicted



* Coffin Ships: 20,000 Irish died enroute to Canada



* At the peak of the famine 3 million people were fed in soup kitchens



* The potato blight was recorded in the US in 1843. It then crossed over to

Europe and hit Ireland in 1845



* By March 1847 there were nearly 750,000 Irish in work houses

http://div8aoh.homestead.com/FamineFacts.html

Fratton Fred

CDfm wrote: »

that is a very interesting topic in its own right

was there contraception in those days

I presume people had worked out what was getting them pregnant?

Are there any recorded mass graves? I know a lot of people were buried pretty much where they fell, but did the towns have mass graves?

CDfm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I presume people had worked out what was getting them pregnant?

i just wondered if the protestant population had access to contraception :pac:

was there a difference in birth rates etc

Are there any recorded mass graves? I know a lot of people were buried pretty much where they fell, but did the towns have mass graves?

i havent heard of them but i assume there were

but i did read pne travellers account of a visit to kerry where the gaveyard was covered in human bones and skeletons as the scale was sp great they gave up burying people

also the survivors would not have the strenght to conduct proper burials

just looked up some stats - the 1740/1 famine had deaths estimated between 3-500,000

1815 -1845 Emigration was around 1.5 million

In 1851 over 1/4 of the population of Liverpool was Irish born and 1/2 of Toronto

Between 1849-52 according to a famine memorial in Liverpool 1 1/4 million Irish travelled thru Liverpool

Flamed Diving

I read a paper which showed that English females started to have children two years later than French females, on average. Perhaps there was a cultural difference for protestants to wait longer?

CDfm

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I read a paper which showed that English females started to have children two years later than French females, on average. Perhaps there was a cultural difference for protestants to wait longer?

Or it could have been something in the potatoes or maybe even ignorance:cool:

Tarzan007

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Weren't the priests telling everyone to go forth and multiply as well? I thought that had a big hand in the population boom as well.

They may well have been. I've heard that their was a short song by Irishmen working in England regarding WW2 when poor old grandad Tommy was locked up in a German or Japanese POW camp etc that went like this -

The English are a funny lot, they try to put down us Paddy's
But little do the bastards know, the Paddy's are their Daddy's !!!!

( So maybe the soccer team could call on a few more of Irish ancestery over there. Obviously the Yanks were having their share of crumpet at the time too )

Flamed Diving

CDfm wrote: »

Or it could have been something in the potatoes or maybe even ignorance:cool:

Probably.

CDfm

Here is a link to the Summary of the 1841 & 1851 Census by County with decreases etc noted.

http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~irlkik/ihm/ire1841.htm

You will need to scroll down to see the table

sensibleken

heres a link not related to the famine but to the cromwellian reconquest and subsequent slavery

http://www.ewtn.com/library/HUMANITY/SLAVES.TXT


In 1641, Ireland's population was 1,466,000 and in 1652,
616,000.

Fratton Fred

Tarzan007 wrote: »

They may well have been. I've heard that their was a short song by Irishmen working in England regarding WW2 when poor old grandad Tommy was locked up in a German or Japanese POW camp etc that went like this -

The English are a funny lot, they try to put down us Paddy's
But little do the bastards know, the Paddy's are their Daddy's !!!!

( So maybe the soccer team could call on a few more of Irish ancestery over there. Obviously the Yanks were having their share of crumpet at the time too )

and your snide comment has what, exactly, to do with this topic

CDfm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

and your snide comment has what, exactly, to do with this topic

I imagine it was a quick retort to your priest comment. Pot & Kettle comes to mind.

Fratton Fred

CDfm wrote: »

I imagine it was a quick retort to your priest comment. Pot & Kettle comes to mind.

And what, pray tell, is wrong with suggesting that Priests were encouraging people to have large families?

were they not then?

CDfm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

And what, pray tell, is wrong with suggesting that Priests were encouraging people to have large families?

were they not then?

i dont know post comparative birth rates for catholics vs protestants and support it by evidence and you may have a valid point -otherwise the post is going to attract the type of comment it recieved unless the post was one you knew would get negative reaction.

edit - and the offensive part of having an irish parent is??

Fratton Fred

CDfm wrote: »

i dont know post comparative birth rates for catholics vs protestants and support it by evidence and you may have a valid point -otherwise the post is going to attract the type of comment it recieved unless the post was one you knew would get negative reaction.

edit - and the offensive part of having an irish parent is??

Methinks you are looking for offence where there is none.

CDfm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Methinks you are looking for offence where there is none.

Ah is that rhetorical :pac:

Anyway -if you are serious about your priest comment and want to prove it you would provide proof.

Otherwise people will think you are attention seeking

Ostrom

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Ok, well it really isn't that hard to get. Let's start with an agrarian population, growing just one crop. They are all living on subsistence level, meaning that they grow enough to feed themselves, and that's about it. So now we introduce a new technology to this community (a new seeding technique) which increases the yield of food they produce each year. So now everyone has a bit more to eat, and move beyond subsistence living. But increasing health might also decrease infant mortality, reduce miscarriages, increase life expectancy, etc. This will cause the population to grow. We still have a fixed amount of land, with our new technology and our one type of crop. So as the population increases, everyone's share of the food decreases, until we are back at subsistence level again, birth rates drops, death rates increase, but we still have levelled out at a slightly higher population.

True, in theory, but your agrarian economy is far more diverse before the introduction of the spud. A combination of pre-industrial cottage industry and mixed farming characterised the pre-famine Irish economy up until the mid 18th century. Rent-in-kind was common amongst grain producers, with a steadily rising cottier population amongst middle farmers before the napoleonic wars.

The introduction of the potato allowed poorer tenants on enclosed estates to subdivide and subsist. KH Connell suggested that the particular ability of the spud to quickly prepare new ground for intensive cultivation compounded the problem, which in turn facilitated population growth. I'm not sure Malthus' approach is best, as the problems on congested estates were compounded by falling grain and linen prices, and communal tenure before population stress through enclosure came to bear - although of course it was a factor

edit - have you seen Liam Kennedy's 'Irish Agriculture: A Price History from the Mid-18th Century to the eve of the first world war?'. Good reading for an economist Exhaustive review

CDfm

Didnt you also have falling prices as a result of the end of the napoleionic wars and say industrialisation in the UK which meant that cash crops had little value and were a thing of the past. You did not have a flow of people from the land to compensate.

Dont forget that the urban population was just 15% and 85% of the population was rural.

One of the things we forget is that not all landlords were the same and some areas were disproportionately tougher. As far as I know my fathers family had a lot of support from Protestant cousins and the area in Wexford was not hit badly by the famine.

So it differed.

Ostrom

CDfm wrote: »

Didnt you also have falling prices as a result of the end of the napoleionic wars and say industrialisation in the UK which meant that cash crops had little value and were a thing of the past. You did not have a flow of people from the land to compensate.

Dont forget that the urban population was just 15% and 85% of the population was rural.

One of the things we forget is that not all landlords were the same and some areas were disproportionately tougher. As far as I know my fathers family had a lot of support from Protestant cousins and the area in Wexford was not hit badly by the famine.

So it differed.

Absolutely. The worst aspects of debates such as these is the tendency to generalise. There were huge local and provincial variations in agriculture, tenure arrangements, local produce markets, rent regimes, landlords, middlemen and agents. Kevin Whelan came closest to a sensible overview with his concept of regional archetypes.

The problem is that an ag scientist's typology could rely on crops (as many have with RDS ag census data), an economist on price data, a historian/historical geographer on valuation records, rent rolls, and estate records - different units and levels of analysis. The famine affected these regions in profoundly different ways.

My 2c, the closest any accounts have come to capturing the complexity of it are Christine Kinealy's and O' Grada's. Also Michael Turner's analysis of post-famine crop yields points to huge variations in pathways to recovery.

CDfm wrote: »

You did not have a flow of people from the land to compensate.

You did, if you are referring to seasonal migration?

CDfm

efla wrote: »

You did, if you are referring to seasonal migration?

I was thinking industrialisation.

So the structure of the issue was different to the UK in both the organisation of society, agriculture and the alternatives available.

Ostrom

Exile 1798 wrote: »

I've heard the claim a number of times that in the years before an Gorta Mór, that the population of Ireland was 8 million and the population of England was 12 million. This is then usually contrasted with today's population of Ireland, 5 million, and England, 50 million.

This is a claim that obviously has Nationalist overtones. So I'm wondering do any of the history heads in here know the facts of it?

I've never read anything solid as far as evidence goes, and haven't been able to come up with anything with google. What I was looking for in particular was any census figures from the time preceding the Famine.

The first two waves* of the Irish census are notoriously unreliable.


*Probably 4, up until 1861 - I cant remember exactly whom took over, it was mentioned in Crawford's research guide to the Irish census. Supervision of enumeration changed hands after the 50's, so the post-famine statistics are generally viewed as more reliable. If you're looking for reading, KH Connell's Population of Ireland is the foundational text.

The following is a brief obituary from Irish Historical Studies, which is probably the shortest possible summary of the big debates. Connell was criticised in later years for basing his fertility rate inferences on his concept of the 'peasant' class, something which is still mooted amongst agricultural historians.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/30006178?seq=1

If you're looking for research material, Carmel Hannan is due to publish her phd research soon, which (as best I remember) looked at changing workforce structures from pre-famine to present. She developed a large dataset, although I have never searched for any papers she may have published.

Flamed Diving

efla wrote: »

True, in theory, but your agrarian economy is far more diverse before the introduction of the spud. A combination of pre-industrial cottage industry and mixed farming characterised the pre-famine Irish economy up until the mid 18th century. Rent-in-kind was common amongst grain producers, with a steadily rising cottier population amongst middle farmers before the napoleonic wars.

The introduction of the potato allowed poorer tenants on enclosed estates to subdivide and subsist. KH Connell suggested that the particular ability of the spud to quickly prepare new ground for intensive cultivation compounded the problem, which in turn facilitated population growth. I'm not sure Malthus' approach is best, as the problems on congested estates were compounded by falling grain and linen prices, and communal tenure before population stress through enclosure came to bear - although of course it was a factor

edit - have you seen Liam Kennedy's 'Irish Agriculture: A Price History from the Mid-18th Century to the eve of the first world war?'. Good reading for an economist Exhaustive review

I'm not sure Malthus' model even considers food prices. I think there is a strong tendency for people to take models a little too literally when presented with one, but they are just guides to understanding phenomena, they can never capture everything, however, and hence should never be taken as gospel truth. As it stands, I think his model stands up pretty well to the empirical data (see pic), which is how I would judge any model.

Anyway, no, I haven't read that book. Sounds interesting.

CDfm

I asked Brian to do a split of a thread on deportation experiences etc Ireland vs UK that were on my slavery thread

Here is what we have on Colony or Class - the real thing is to get a handle on Civil Rights Ireland Vs England

Fratton Fred put the idea in my head as I know very little of how the English were treated or the structure of their society.A James Connolly aficionado if ever there was one

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055905013

The original slavery thread is here and we had got bogged down on issues like bonded servitude and anyone who could throw any light on the different experiences Ireland vs England or any other nationality we all may learn a bit.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055755192

I mean there were still serfs in Europe till the late 19th Century -if my recollection is correct.

SlabMurphy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

and your snide comment has what, exactly, to do with this topic

....About as much as yours

CDfm

LOL I see you are both keen to look at our democracy/suffrage analisys of circa 19th century Britain and Ireland and its evolution..

I can see you both itching to take pops at rotten boroughs and working class insurections etc.:D

Ruling classes and the colonial system.

But we are looking to analyse the voting systems to show them up factually. I thought it would be right up your streets and you would be able to tell us what was what.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055905013

InTheTrees

sensibleken wrote: »

heres a link not related to the famine but to the cromwellian reconquest and subsequent slavery

http://www.ewtn.com/library/HUMANITY/SLAVES.TXT

In 1641, Ireland's population was 1,466,000 and in 1652,
616,000.

Fascinating.

MarchDub

CDfm - I think what you are proposing here - a discussion on how the average Joe in Ireland and England did is a much more convoluted task that simply looking at rotten boroughs or the franchise. For one, the Irish economy was hindered over hundreds of years by the various English parliamentary Acts which favoured English trade and production over Irish. The various Cattle Acts and the Wool Act are good examples. In the 1666 Cattle Act it is clearly stated that no Irish cattle is to be imported to England or Wales or anywhere that English beef was being sold because such action is detrimental to the English economy. While this served the English economy, the result was loss of income in Ireland. Wool - a very important commody in the days before synthetics - was likewise curtailed in Ireland from export trade in favour of English wool.

While these were economic and political decisions made on behalf of vested interests they would have impacted on the ordinary person's ability to make a living.