Tracing families dispossessed by Cromwell

Rebelheart

Right. So back in the 1930s my family received a farm of land from the Land Commission. My uncle, who has the land now, said we were given first preference on it by the Commission because Cromwell had dispossessed the family from there. (This is by the by, but I have recently spoken with people in other parts of Ireland whose families also had first refusal on Land Commission property due to their being recorded as owners in their townland in 1641. Was this LC policy?)

Anyway, sure enough in the Civil Survey of 1655-56, the recorded landowner in 1641 had precisely the same first and last name as my grandfather.

The local CC parish records on microfilm in the NLI only go back to 1789, and I reckon the parish had the laziest Catholic priests in Ireland because on no occasion do we get more than a name, not even a townland to identify people. There are eight separate, unrelated families in our area with the same surname. Each of them is identified by their townland. In 1930, none of the families lived on any of the actual townlands that the guy in 1641 is recorded as having owned. But all were recorded in the area. I'm thinking a way around this could be to find out what happened the people who were dispossessed in the 1650s.

My question, therefore, is: When the native landowners were dispossessed in the 1650s, was a record kept of:

A) the names of the dispossessed;
what happened to them, and specifically where, if anywhere, they were given other land/moved to.


What was the name of this record?

unclejunior

Most of them ended up in connaught or the west indies. i dont think you would have any hope in finding the 'rightful owners' of that land now. what the lc did was stupid.

trinity college ran an expo on the dispossessed not too long ago. if you look that up you may find their sources which will include what your looking for

nuac

There was a scheme under the Land Acts whereby owners of small scattered holdings in the Congested Districts of the West could surrender the holding to the Land Commission in exchange for an "economic holding" in a county such as Meath. At the time teh Land Commission considered 30 or 40 acres to be an economic holding.

The holding in the West apart from being poor land was often scattered into various plots throughout the townland. This was due to the rundale system.

I was involved in some of those cases in the sixties. I never heard of any provision that the person surrendering the "farm" in the West got land from which his ancestor was evicted. I am not aware of any such provision in the Land Acts. Records at the time ( 17 C ) were not great, and it would be difficult to establish who was evicted from where. You tend to get many of the same name. The incoming farmer was charmingly called a "congest".

The entire Land Acts operation was one of the most important historical and social events in Irish life. Itis often overlooked. It converted every tenant farmer into a freehold owner. the entire operation was organised by Land Commission inspectors. They spent their time out in the rural areas allocating land, sorting out rights of way, seaweed rights in coastal areas, turbary rights etc. Patient men. In some rural areas some of those inspectors remembered for many years afterwards

They marked divisions by means of a "lock-spit" - a sod of earth turned over with a spade, I have been out on land where disputes arose 30+ years ago where the division shown by the lock spit had not been fenced. Could still be seen, just

pedroeibar1

nuac wrote: »

There was a scheme under the Land Acts whereby owners of small scattered holdings in the Congested Districts of the West could surrender the holding to the Land Commission in exchange for an "economic holding" in a county such as Meath. At the time teh Land Commission considered 30 or 40 acres to be an economic holding.

The holding in the West apart from being poor land was often scattered into various plots throughout the townland. This was due to the rundale system.

I was involved in some of those cases in the sixties. I never heard of any provision that the person surrendering the "farm" in the West got land from which his ancestor was evicted. I am not aware of any such provision in the Land Acts. Records at the time ( 17 C ) were not great, and it would be difficult to establish who was evicted from where. You tend to get many of the same name. The incoming farmer was charmingly called a "congest".

The entire Land Acts operation was one of the most important historical and social events in Irish life. Itis often overlooked. It converted every tenant farmer into a freehold owner. the entire operation was organised by Land Commission inspectors. They spent their time out in the rural areas allocating land, sorting out rights of way, seaweed rights in coastal areas, turbary rights etc. Patient men. In some rural areas some of those inspectors remembered for many years afterwards

They marked divisions by means of a "lock-spit" - a sod of earth turned over with a spade, I have been out on land where disputes arose 30+ years ago where the division shown by the lock spit had not been fenced. Could still be seen, just

Agreed on the Land Acts / Land Commission, also I never encountered an incident (only looked at Kerry, E Limerick & S. Tipp) of any grant linked to an ancestral claim. Herself's family are in the same place (N.Tipp.) for centuries, bought the lease in 1903 (?). However, I always understood that the 'transplantation' of Galwaymen & their families to Meath (e.g. Rathcairn) was foremost part of Dev's great plan for 'Oirishing' the rest of the country rather than land reallocation. Also, rights of turbary / drawing seaweed were usually contained in the original leases, as were sporting rights, some of which were conveyed in the deed of transfer, but not always.

nuac

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Agreed on the Land Acts / Land Commission, also I never encountered an incident (only looked at Kerry, E Limerick & S. Tipp) of any grant linked to an ancestral claim. Herself's family are in the same place (N.Tipp.) for centuries, bought the lease in 1903 (?). However, I always understood that the 'transplantation' of Galwaymen & their families to Meath (e.g. Rathcairn) was foremost part of Dev's great plan for 'Oirishing' the rest of the country rather than land reallocation. Also, rights of turbary / drawing seaweed were usually contained in the original leases, as were sporting rights, some of which were conveyed in the deed of transfer, but not always.

Pedro

The creation of the Rathchairn Gaeltacht was an effort to start a new Gaeltacht peopled by Connemara people. It was probably done under the Land Acts procedure. It is the only such effort ( i.e. new Gaeltacht ) that I know of,

Re turbary rights, seaweed rights etc, the tenants on the estates may not have had these or they may have not been defined.

In a coastal region when sorting out the estate for vesting the freehold in the tenants, the Land Commission often "striped" the land, leading to a narrow holding with some frontage on the coast, and some frontage to the mountain behind. Rights in common i.e. commonage would have been granted over the mountain

The coastal frontage carried some seaweed rights. The turbary rights were mapped out in plots, with strict provisions about keeping drains open, not cutting too near the roadm nor cuutting the last nine inches of peat.

Like i said those inspectors did a lot of good work

pedroeibar1

nuac wrote: »

Pedro

The creation of the Rathchairn Gaeltacht was an effort to start a new Gaeltacht peopled by Connemara people. It was probably done under the Land Acts procedure. It is the only such effort ( i.e. new Gaeltacht ) that I know of,

Re turbary rights, seaweed rights etc, the tenants on the estates may not have had these or they may have not been defined.

In a coastal region when sorting out the estate for vesting the freehold in the tenants, the Land Commission often "striped" the land, leading to a narrow holding with some frontage on the coast, and some frontage to the mountain behind. Rights in common i.e. commonage would have been granted over the mountain

The coastal frontage carried some seaweed rights. The turbary rights were mapped out in plots, with strict provisions about keeping drains open, not cutting too near the roadm nor cuutting the last nine inches of peat.

Like i said those inspectors did a lot of good work

I'd suggest many of the rights conveyed depended on the size, location and layout of the estate being divided, as rundale strips would be difficult in many areas (except perhaps on bogs, particularly when these were separate to the holding being conveyed). Often, turbary rights had been included / excluded / limited in extent in the landlords' original leases (however short) to tenants, and later followed the land when it was re-vested as a freehold. Rights of way remain a nightmare, many are actually specific 'private' and not 'public' rights, i.e. rights granted to a defined population and not the general public. For example, a right of passage granted to individuals living in a specific townland to pass and repass over a path specifically while drawing seaweed from the shore. It does not follow that 'outsiders' have those same rights, or even that the successors of the original grantees today have a right to walk their dogs on the path.

Some of my ancestors were to the fore in land agitation & tenant rights from the 1800's and a kinsman was politically involved in the Land Acts. By the 1940's & 1950's when there was no money in farming, my grandfather had other employment and leased the family land; thus he was forced to sell by the Land Commission.

There is an interesting article on the Rathcarron/Rathcairn Gaeltacht here http://www.theirishstory.com/2012/07/13/rath-cairn-land-reform-language-politics-in-the-irish-free-state/#.UBl7tlJdC1c

nuac

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

I'd suggest many of the rights conveyed depended on the size, location and layout of the estate being divided, as rundale strips would be difficult in many areas (except perhaps on bogs, particularly when these were separate to the holding being conveyed). Often, turbary rights had been included / excluded / limited in extent in the landlords' original leases (however short) to tenants, and later followed the land when it was re-vested as a freehold. Rights of way remain a nightmare, many are actually specific 'private' and not 'public' rights, i.e. rights granted to a defined population and not the general public. For example, a right of passage granted to individuals living in a specific townland to pass and repass over a path specifically while drawing seaweed from the shore. It does not follow that 'outsiders' have those same rights, or even that the successors of the original grantees today have a right to walk their dogs on the path.

Some of my ancestors were to the fore in land agitation & tenant rights from the 1800's and a kinsman was politically involved in the Land Acts. By the 1940's & 1950's when there was no money in farming, my grandfather had other employment and leased the family land; thus he was forced to sell by the Land Commission.

There is an interesting article on the Rathcarron/Rathcairn Gaeltacht here http://www.theirishstory.com/2012/07/13/rath-cairn-land-reform-language-politics-in-the-irish-free-state/#.UBl7tlJdC1c[/QUOTE]

Pedro

Thanks for the ref to Rathchairn Gaeltacht. AN interesting social experiment,

Rights of way were and are a legal minefield - see the recent Lissadel case.

The Land Commission inspectors did their best to sort out these when allocating lands.

Sorry about your uncle losing his land. Compensation would have been in the form of Land Bonds. These could rarely be sold at face value, and declined in value in inflationary times.

During and after WW2 emigration took off from the West. Typically an emigrant would let the land. Soon that tenant or other neighbours would write into the Land Commission complaining that the lands were let and were not being fully utilised etc. Land Commission would eventually serve notices to compulsorily acquire the lands "to relieve congestion". A Land Commission sat in the county to hear objections from the owner.

The emigrant would try to make a case that he was only away for a short period and would soon re-stock the land and resume farming. Might get a years adjournment based on that. If no progress the following year, the land would be acquired, and redistributed amongst the neighbours.

Many who could not get employment back home could not hold on, and lost land that their family had for many generations. A sad time, and a lot of bitterness in the locality.