The following case study by drawing upon primary and secondary material focuses on whether the eighteenth century Whiteboy protesters were an economic or political movement? To establish the category the Whiteboys come under we need to do is deifier what constitutes an economic and a political movement. An economic movement has the economy at its core; it deals with the system of production and management of material wealth and is concerned with the worldly necessities of life. A political movement is a group of people working together to attain a political goal, a movement that may be organised around a set of issues or a set of shared concerns of a social group. Moreover it can be identified with the aim in mind to convince citizens and/or government to take action on the issues and concerns around which the movement is associated. Alternatively a political movement can be associated with and/or relating to views about social relationships involving authority or power; in the sense that the poor had rights too. It is fair to say that there is evidence to support the argument that the Whiteboys were economic but there is indication to suggest the latter. The content will focus on both sides of the argument evaluating each and at the end consider which has most weight.
To set the scene it is important to note who exactly the Whiteboys were and to use their features, aims, methods and so on to determine what type of movement they were. Indeed the Whiteboys that emerged in Ireland during the eighteenth century were an agrarian organisation and Ireland witnessed two outbreaks of the Whiteboys during this time; the first 1761–63 and the second 1769-1776. The Whiteboys were first active in October 1761 in County Tipperary. The enclosure of the common land (commonage) and conacre were the primary grievances; this meant the decrease of available land for farming and increased enclosure of land for pasturage and pleasure parks built by the gentry. The regulation of tithe particularly of corn, the level of rent paid to landlords and evictions of tenants were most associated with the second outbreak of Whiteboys in 1769.
The Whiteboys were a secret, oath bound organization. These oaths were mutual bonds between the Whiteboys and helped to conceal their identities. Some of the oaths such as this one from Darby Browne and his associates at Ballyin, revealed just how committed the Whiteboys were to their cause; ‘To do all in our power to hinder anyone from taking the little concerns we held’ Moreover those involved in the movement were Irish peasants who were often portrayed as ‘jacks-of-all-trades’. It was cottiers and the smallest farmers, those at the bottom of the social hierarch who were the principal activists in the Whiteboy movement. James Donnelly argues that small Catholic farmers and laborers led the movement and there was no sign of gentry involvement, whereas other historians have claimed that ‘captains’ were of a higher social status than the base in which the movement drew its support; the peasant society. Donnelly later adopts this approach to the second outbreak and agrees that the leaders were of a higher social status. Moreover, the Whiteboys had ubiquitous forms of making their point, some of which are similar to an earlier movement, the Houghers. They used violence against people and property and are said to have “gone about the country in large bodies, throwing down fences, rooting up orchards, cutting down trees (that enclosed the common land), destroying bullocks and doing various injuries to property”. All of these methods used in order to pursue their aims and objectives.
It is important to mention that ‘Whiteboyism’ was the term later used to apply to all types of protest. In addition to the Whiteboys there was the emergence of the Rightboys, Steelboys and Ribbonmen to name a few and it is possible to draw similarities and differences between the movements. According to Michael Beames and George Cornewall Lewis Whiteboyism was both southern and agrarian. Indeed the introduction of the terminology Whiteboyism provides evidence of the step change in the amount of protest that took place during the century.
When arguing the case that the Whiteboys were an economic movement it is important to start with the context and what was happening in the back drop. First and foremost was the modernization of the rural economy. Rural uprisings have been explained to some extent as a consequence of the deprivation suffered by peasants in such economic circumstances and perhaps also as a result of their determination to restore an earlier economic system. Indeed as Donnelly argues modernization has steadily drawn peasants into a new economic system that poses threats to which they were not accustomed to in previous, traditional societies.
Modernization meant that peasants were subject to exploitation from landlords as well as price fluctuations that were more violent and less predictable than was traditionally the case. Moreover peasants lost their traditional rights to common land and lost security of tenure; a custom on which they depended. The fact that that commonage was a custom, the Whiteboys used this as a means of legitimizing their cause. Indeed it was during the downward spiral that followed the French revolutionary and Napoleonic wars that landlords became more demanding of the loose practises commonly permitted on estates in the eighteenth century and during war time prosperity. Evidence that reveals how opposed the peasants were to modernization of the rural economy and their determination to defend their tradition is shown through resistance to the breakup of joint tenancies, to the conversion of tillage land to pasture and to the consolidation of holdings.
One of the major points to build the case that the Whiteboys were an economic movement as mentioned above, is their grievance over the regulation of tithes, wages and rents. The Whiteboys demand however was not for the abolition of rents or tithes but for these and other forms of exploitation to remain within customary levels. To explain the situation it has to be noted that the growing market demand for pastoral products led to an expansion of dairy farming and grazing which ultimately meant the enclosure of common land. As agriculture and farming became more and more profitable, the land value rose and therefore so too did the price of conacre. This brought about hardship and distress for the rural poor, as they depended on these small plots of land. Tithe; a tax that had to be paid by everyone, fluctuated during this period and was an economic grievance most associated with the second outbreak of Whiteboys. One English writer described the tithe mongers as “harpies who squeezed at the very vitals of the people and by process, citation and sequestration, dragged from them the little which the landlord had left them”.
When considering the wider historical debate concerning the Whiteboys, Dr Morley offers an interpretation that categorizes the Whiteboys as an economic movement. He offers evidence from contemporary Gaelic sources to suggest that the movement represented ‘a chronically alienated population goaded into action by economic distress.’ These disturbances were ‘the deeds of desperate men, who had been made desperate by cruel oppression’. Yet the first outbreak of Whiteboyism was brought about by prosperity. However not all benefited; the strong farmers and landlords primarily benefited and this further increased the chasm between rich and poor. The agricultural prosperity produced extensive economic changes in the South of Ireland that helped to trigger and sustain the outbreak of agrarian unrest. The depression of the early 1770s however is not a plausible explanation to attribute the revival of Whiteboyism; ‘It does not explain why Whiteboy activity was most intense in 1775, when oatmeal and potatoes were cheap and when the prices of nearly all agricultural commodities were good to excellent.’ The second outbreak beginning in the summer of 1769 was before the economic disruptions caused by harvest failure began to be felt.
It can be argued that there are signs of a moral economy evident and Beames believes this to be the case. E.P Thompson has maintained that it was ‘possible to detect in almost every eighteenth century crowd action some form of legitimizing notion, borne out of a desire to defined traditional rights or custom’. Thompson goes on to say that ‘upon a consistent traditional view of social norms, of the proper economic functions of several parties within the community, which taken together can be said to constitute the moral economy of the poor.’ It can be argued that the Whiteboys aim of preventing the enclosure of common land fits perfectly into Thompson’s concept of a moral economy. Moreover the Whiteboys took action over what was legitimate and based on the notion of what was fair, they did not set out to abolish tithe, all they wanted was a fair, just price. Yet not all historians agree with this interpretation, including Donnelly. Political sentiments that may have been under the surface raised questions as to whether or not they fit a moral economy.
To bring this side of the discussion to a close, it is evident that the Whiteboys had an economic context; modernization of the rural economy which was detrimental to those involved in the movement. Economic hardships and grievances brought about by the enclosure of common land and the rate of tithe to be paid alongside wages and rents, spurred the Irish peasant farmers to take action. Change was disrupting their traditional way of life and they wanted to see a return to what was custom; they wanted back what they saw as a necessity of life. This is what constitutes them as an economic movement. On the other hand the Whiteboys it has to be noted were not economic in the sense that they were profiteering, trying to exploit others or concerned with material wealth. The common land to grow crops and graze animals was in order to support their family and for their own survival, nothing else.
In considering the other side of the debate and that the eighteenth century Whiteboys were a political movement, it can be argued that the Whiteboys and indeed the later terminology Whiteboyism was closely linked to political disaffection. In other words the Whiteboys were more than just an agrarian protest group. Although they were hoping to see a return to the traditional, accustomed way of life and to prevent further exploitation of the peasants, the authorities saw this as a mask for popular unrest, turbulence and an attack upon the system. Whiteboyism was not an inevitable reaction to popular grievances, but a reaction molded by a particular culture, one with a strong tradition of lawlessness which was by no means the exclusive preserve of the poor as Clark and Donnelly argue.
The first outbreak of Whiteboys has been viewed as a popish plot to overturn the government which was then involved in a war with continental Catholic powers. The authorities prompted swift military and judicial in retaliation. The punishment of the Whiteboys for their crimes according to Arthur Young was with a ‘severity which seemed calculated for the meridian of Barbary, while others remain yet the law of the land…if executed tend more to raise than to quell an insurrection’. Authorities felt the threat was so powerful and the escalation in violence so serious as to implement new legislation to deal with the problem. However in 1962 ‘Whiteboyism became less formidable, its geographical range sharply contracted, its active adherents grew fewer and its operations were confined to parts of Tipperary and Kilkenny’. Ironically this return towards older patterns of rural protest did nothing to cure Protestant paranoia about a popish insurrection. The second outbreak of the Whiteboys it has been argued was more violent and militaristic in its methods and this would no doubt have evoked an even greater fear of potential threat. By this time it was all too apparent ‘that agrarian rebellion was firmly rooted in Irish soil that it needed no water from France to nourish its growth’.
Moreover during the 1750s and the period following, protestants continued to believe that an invasion by one of Britain’s continental enemies would have a popular support base. This is where Connolly’s idea of Irish Jacobinism, the persistence of Jacobite sentiment and the realism of Jacobite hopes comes into play. William Blacker subscribed to this widespread belief among Irish Protestants that the initial Whiteboy outbreak was purposely timed to coincide with the attempted French invasion of 1759. Striking evidence for this comes from the fact that the Whiteboy outbreaks began only after the defeat of the French fleet. Furthermore before the 1770s the foundation for solidarity among Catholics was presumed to be their allegiance to the alternative dynasty sponsored by France and their interest in recovering forfeited estates. Drs O Ciardha and Morley claim that ‘the majority of Irish Catholics denied the political legitimacy of the Hanoverian monarchy and looked forward to the violent overthrow’.
One primary source in particular that deserves attention, is a letter which first appeared in the Cork Evening Post whereby the author argues that the Whiteboys were ‘a fifth column raised by French agents in preparation for an imminent invasion’. This most definitely ties into the Protestant fears at the time. Meetings ‘are headed and directed by people dressed far above the ability of the poor’, they were taught ‘military exercise’, the ‘oath is quite agreeable to the design of raising a rebellion’ and ‘many of them have known to desire both by their words and letters that they would soon have a change of government’. However like most it cannot be taken at face value.
Another primary source that fits into this idea that the Whiteboys were involved in a popish plot and connects there involvement with continental powers is a ballad from 1762. It makes clear that their true intention was ‘co-operation with Spain and if possible to restore the Pretender.’ The lyrics ‘to freedom we call you- a Stuart shall reign- Usurpation shall vanish – accept aid from Spain…Right royal is our prince…we’ll fight till we die, or restore him again’ convey this particularly well. Likewise, contemporary pamphlets such as the following ‘The Insurrection or a Faithful Narrative of the Disturbances under the Denomination of White or Right Boys’ reveals the revolutionary nature of those involved in the movement. This one in particular contends that ‘such a spirit of hostility should have suddenly broken forth, as setting at defiance all the restraints of legal authority and crafting off all reverence for religion, bids fair for bringing about a revolution’.
Furthermore the method of intimidation and the notices in which the Whiteboys used can be said to have given them a political edge, to get them noticed and to be taken seriously. Notices such as the following were used, ‘if you do not do what I want… and you despise these warnings you may look out, as you will be assassinated when you least expect it’. Indeed their style which mimicked official legal letters, warned that death would be the result of an infringement of their code of laws, ‘remark the consequence Thomas Wardren dant pay the tithe for if you do you may prepare your coffin’. The Whiteboys were striving to enforce their own legal codes.
In addition to the above the political context of the Whiteboys must be addressed. The Penal Laws directed against Catholic land ownership, political participation and religious organisation have been seen as the context to bring about this popular protest, unrest and discontent, which gives the movement a political edge. In addition it was Catholics that benefited from the common land more than anyone else and they felt the enclosure of it was aimed specifically at exploiting them. This is where the religious division comes into play. Nevertheless Connolly sees flaws with this argument and contends that the penal laws were not a cloak for land grabbing or the defence of elite privilege, but a response to the real threat posed by a hostile majority. The fact that the enclosure of common land was in Britain as well as Ireland feeds into Connolly’s claim.
Donnelly sees the first outbreak of the Whiteboys as a regional agrarian rebellion; this feeds into the idea that local protest was just a mask. Donnelly uses the spread of the movement, the oaths of loyalty sworn and the militaristic and organisational elements, as evidence to support his claim. Indeed themes of delivery of from tyranny by foreign invasion and the return of the rightful King remained in poetry, songs, lamentations and oaths. Likewise Donnelly sees the second outbreak of Whiteboys as more than just protest and makes a clear distinction between the first and second outbreak. His argument is based on the geographical spread of the second outbreak into the South and South East, as well as the wider range of grievances that emerged. For him the second outbreak put most of its energy into reducing the tithe of corn and indeed this heavy concern on tithe along with the issues of rents and evictions revealed a shift in the social composition of Whiteboyism towards farmer and their sons.
It is important to take into consideration some of the sources that the Whiteboys left behind to see if we can establish the grounds for Donnelly’s above argument. Is there any significant symbolic importance in these oaths that fuses local activity into the wider network of a regional movement? For Donnelly some of the oaths conveyed the explicit aims of the insurgents whereas others dealt with matters of organisation and discipline. One example of a Whiteboy oath that Donnelly uses which shows evidence of organisation, discipline, loyalty and militarisation is that apprehended at Tallow in 1762; ‘I do hereby solemnly and sincerely swear…I will be ready at an hours’ warning…we will be loyal one to another as in our power lies.’ The military terms ‘officers’, ‘serjeants’ and ‘corporals’ mentioned add power to the movement and the phrase ‘I will not drink of any liquor whatsoever whilst on duty’ shows the disciplined nature of the Whiteboys. The oath itself has a sense of power, solidarity and there is a feeling of belonging. Nevertheless this source cannot be taken at face value; the rhetoric that is implied is used to secure allegiance and to frighten those who are not already a member.
A lamentation of the Newmarket Whiteboys, another primary source we can analyise links up with the viewpoint that there was more to the Whiteboys than local protest and the language used suggests Catholic-Jacobite connection, ‘I have hope in Mary and in those who went beyond seas that we will be some day in high repute’. However on the other hand it can be argued that this Jacobite rhetoric was only used to add strength; there was no underlying message or hidden agenda implied with this use of language.
In considering the primary sources that remain and give us an insight into the Whiteboy movement, it is interesting that Cullen claims Gaelic poetry is a reliable source for the political attitudes of the common people. Morley agrees with this and claims that you need to study the poetry and how people spoke. Nevertheless the evidence in which Cullen’s argument is based has been challenged, particularly by Connelly. It can be said that the antagonism of political and social order expressed throughout poetry should be read as representing the grievances of a fortunate group whose objection was the loss of a farmer privileged status. In other words this poetry was elite and did not represent the common people’s point of view. This makes us ponder as to who exactly was participant in the movement? Was there elite involvement? If so was the movement based on something more than just economic grievances and hardship of the Irish peasants? Was there a wider context? Political, more regional perhaps?
Although the above argument that the Whiteboys were a political movement has a great deal of weight assigned to it, other historians disagree and have used available Whiteboy primary sources to confirm the contrary. In other words there was no sign of any revolutionary elements, the disturbances were neither insurrectionary nor proto nationalist and National identity was not part of Whiteboyism. The view from above was as in Ireland that the disturbances did not have a political character. The following will analyise these available sources as well as look at the wider historiography that surrounds this viewpoint that the Whiteboys were in no way politically minded.
The first point that deserves attention is the historiography of modernization. It assumes that the agrarian Whiteboys could see no further than their plot of land, would not generate political impulses independently of elite leadership and would not draw general political conclusions about the world and their place in it. Parliamentary enquiries reduced the disloyal or insurrectionary elements of the Irish peasants to ‘racial stereotypes of a quasi-mystical attachment to land’.
As mentioned above the rural poor left behind a great deal of vernacular literature that historians have used to support their conclusions but it is important to address the relationship between literacy convention and serious political aspiration. Although the Irish peasants amused themselves with song and story of the potential threat from foreign invasion, this form of escapism as Cullen puts, bore no real relation to the highly pragmatic or law abiding manner in which those involved negotiated their day to day relationship with social and political superiors. Furthermore much of the literature left behind contains Jacobite rhetoric which Professor O Buachailla suggests, offered ‘a political lexicon which was based on concepts of legitimacy of right as opposed to might of freedom’. In other words the magistrates had little to fear because there was no hard evidence to suggest the threat of a Catholic uprising, nor a Jacobite invasion that would have widespread Catholic support. The Whiteboys however used Jacobite rhetoric in songs and poetry to play upon these fears and indeed to get themselves noticed.
Furthermore some contemporaries have used the colour white to connect the Whiteboys with Jacobitism and to reveal the Whiteboys as more than an agrarian movement. This argument however has no real weight assigned to it. Many of the Whiteboys wore white cockades, they often carried a white flag and their pipers played ‘The lad with the white cockade’. The tune may have been Jacobite in inspiration as was the white flag standard of Catholic France, however this doesn’t prove enough to base an argument upon. Firstly the tune in which the pipers played was a capital air for marching and the flag could be explained in a similar manner. As for the white linen worn over their clothes, this could be put down to distinguishing friend from foe in the dark as it was at night time that the Whiteboys went about their business.
From a major analysis of the sources left behind by the Whiteboys, it is apparent that there is ambiguity when interpreting the use of language. Historians must use their own judgement to overcome this and decide for themselves what is rhetoric and pretentious and on the other hand what is contentious and antagonistic. On top of this there are contradictions between ‘talk and action’ so to speak. A fine example can be taken from the following. Some Whiteboys expecting a foreign invasion ‘talked and boasted they would change or put down government’ but the cry commonly heard from many ‘Long live King George III and Queen Sive’ somewhat opposed and conflicted reflected their political sentiments.
Patrick J Corish describes the slogan ‘Long live King George III and Queen Sive’ as a ‘common rallying cry of the Whiteboys’ and claims it was ‘not surprising that they should have no special grudge against the King, for it was not he who was opposing them.’ Roy Foster uses the same slogan to support his view that the objective of the Whiteboys was ‘redress and restoration rather than revolution’. Connolly argues that ‘those involved were concerned only to fend off unwelcome change rather than to challenge the social or political order. Even in the dying declaration of five Whiteboys who were executed in 1762 at Waterford there is evidence to suggest that the Whiteboys were not a threat to the King’s life and that they had no intention to plot/plan against him or any of the sort. They took God to witness “that in all these tumults it never did enter into their thoughts to do anything against the King or God”.
The fact that the Whiteboys swore to King George, ‘King reign thro’ me’ should well and truly reveal that they never intended to go against ‘King and Country’. An exhortation read from the Altars of different Romish Chapels in the city in February 1762 shows the religious appeal ‘to be faithful, dutiful and obedient to the powers and governors…bless his Majesty’. The line ‘forget not that the several penal laws in force against you in this Kingdom were enacted in reigns under anterior to the accession of his Royal House’ expresses that King George was not the oppressor that initiated the Penal Laws restricting Catholic rights. The exhortation goes on to say that the country should stand together against continental enemies in the context of the Seven Years War. Finally it appeals to the two morals God and King, and goes on to say that any activity against his Majesty, would be disobeying the ‘law of God, and your Religion’.
In addition to the above, Lecky rejects any allegation that the Whiteboys were a political movement. For him the Whiteboys were apolitical (politically neutral) and non-sectarian. The Whiteboys had support from lower class Catholics and the majority of the Whiteboys themselves were Roman Catholics. Most of the landlords who were victims of Whiteboy activity were however were Protestant. Looking back in hindsight, it was inevitable that allegations of sectarianism would emerge. Nevertheless as Lecky argues these charges made in the context of the Seven Years’ War with France, betrayed fears of French invasion. Protestant paranoia ensured that the agitation of social and economic questions was quickly sucked into the political arena. Historians that agree with Lecky’s argument that the Whiteboys were apolitical give evidence from the early slogan of the 1760s used by the Whiteboys ‘long live King George III and Queen Sive’. Protests that involved the invocation of Queen Sive were in no way disloyal to the Crown and that they were taking up arms only against unworthy royal servants or tyrannical local lords remained one of the great commonplaces of early modern rebellion in Europe and Ireland was no exemption.
As Lecky mentions above, the fact that most of the labouring poor were Catholic and the majority of the landed rich were Protestant should not be misinterpreted as evidence of a Catholic insurgency or an anti-government demonstration. Moreover the targets and victims of the Whiteboys were not members of government or parliament and this should be noted to stress that the Whiteboys were not anti-government.
Catholic commentators have argued that the Whiteboys did not device a popish plot and had no intention of harming Protestants or the system of government. They pointed to the cases of William Fant who led a crowd in destroying fences around Silver Oliver’s common and John Baynard who had taken a principle role in the Kilfinnane disturbances. Although their involvement was not of real significance, it still shows Protestant participation. It is fair to say that many Protestant gentlemen loathed the tithe system as it affected them as well. This should help to rule of any sectarian elements that may have existed in the Whiteboys.
Moreover, an alternative interpretation that has emerged suggests the Whiteboys were not a movement of social or political revolution and contends that protest was most commonly initiated in a reaction to actual or threatened change; in the case of the first outbreak of Whiteboys the enclosure of common land and the extension of pasture. Kevin Whelan, like Hobsbawn and Rude see Whiteboyism as a reactionary phenomenon, he uses Thompson’s concept of a moral economy in a modernization framework. It is evident that modernization and change to traditional ways brought about the need to defend customary practises. There is much evidence to suggest that this concept ran through much of the popular protest in Ireland during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
It is fair to claim that there was overlap of economic and political elements evident in the eighteenth century Whiteboy movement. The earliest grievance for the Whiteboys in the 1760s was the enclosure of common land. For the local farmers this had been a tradition to which they were accustomed, they depended on this plot of land to graze animals and grow produce. This fits into the definition of an economic movement, as it were concerned with the worldly necessities of life. At the same time this enclosure of the common land by landlords can be used to identify the Whiteboys as a political movement. The Whiteboys were a group of people who were organised around a set of issues or around a set of shared concerns of a social group and in their case it was the Irish peasants. In many respects the Whiteboys may be seen as ‘a vast trades union for the protection of the Irish peasantry.
A further argument that relates to the above claims that it was neither an economic nor a political movement through and through, but they integrated elements of both as grievances changed. The initial grievance associated with the Whiteboys of the early 1760s was the enclosure of common land whereas the second outbreak of Whiteboys is most associated with the regulation of tithe. In other words it is unclear to deifier the category the Whiteboys come under but from the evidence we have to work with we can see clearly that they swayed easily between the two.
Finally, we must ask ourselves was the Whiteboy movement politicized; in other words an economic, social or theological issue that has become a political issue. For this we must look at the broader picture, especially with regards to what was happening at the time. It is evident from Donnelly’s work that the second outbreak of Whiteboys spread South and Southeast and that the social profile was different. Does this imply politicization- were the Whiteboys concerned about something more than economic grievances and did this local protest at the beginning mask something bigger or a larger scale? Did the Whiteboys have an ulterior motif and did economics feed into politics? Or on the other hand did the Whiteboys spread genuinely because their economic grievances did? These are all questions that are open to debate.
In conclusion there is convincing evidence to suggest that the Whiteboys contained elements that represent an economic and a political movement and as mentioned above, at times there is overlap between the two. On the other hand there is evidence to suggest that the Whiteboys were not in any way politically minded with regards to a potential foreign invasion or overturn of the system and in relation to an economic movement, they were not economic in the sense that they were out to gain or profiteer. The debate is very open and so many different interpretations come into play and the historiography surrounding the issue remains divided particularly between contemporary and recent historians. Even the primary sources we have to work with offer evidence to suggest the key arguments addressed above, although how reliable these primary sources are to an historians is open for discussion. Vincent Morley’s argument is a good end point as he makes a clear cut and coherent judgement which has its strengths. He argues that the Irish language sources that remain represents the Whiteboys as neither a loyal response to short term economic grievances, nor a French inspired conspiracy to overthrow the political establishment. Rather they represent an alienated population which was goaded into action by economic distress. In other words they stand alone and cannot be easily defined as economic or political.