The English Civil Wars: Women in the 1641 Irish Uprising

The Uprising of 1641 was one of the last straws that would disintegrate relations between King Charles I and his Parliament, with accusations of Catholic sympathizing resting at the heart of the divide. After years of growing resentment towards the new English Protestant landowners who controlled much of Ireland, the native Irish Catholic population rose up in rebellion, slaughtering Protestants both military and civilian. While the majority of the violence occurred in the province of Ulster, what is now Northern Ireland, it quickly spread south. The unrest would grow into a conflict that would last for nearly a decade, until Oliver Cromwell’s New Model Army arrived and massacred whole cities in retaliation.

Both the Irish Catholics and the Irish Protestants claimed their actions in the name of the king. As the divide between Royalist and Parliamentarian grew back in England, Royalist identity was thrown back and forth, used as a weapon of accusation as suspicion of disloyalty grew. Loyalty to the king was a valuable rhetorical tool, used by both Catholics and Protestants to defend their righteousness.

In the aftermath of 1641, a number of female writers chronicled their experiences and captured this tension of identities. Depositions were taken by the English authorities in the aftermath of the original violence, and hundreds of individuals described their suffering and losses. The women’s voices captured in these depositions are unique for the time, as most had limited literacy. Two of the major exceptions to this rule are Lettice Digby, Baroness Offaly, who wrote a series of letters to a rebel leader as he besieged her castle, and Lady Elizabeth Dowdall, who wrote a monograph describing her own experience leading forces against the Irish Catholics. The experiences recorded by women’s voices highlight the conflicting identities of the inhabitants of Ireland, where loyalty to the Crown, religion, and even the languages one spoke were ever changing and easily used as weapons. (Coolahan 2010, 141-179)

The 1641 Depositions

In the aftermath of the rebellion, the English state sent an authorized group of Protestant clergymen over to Ireland with the express purpose of gathering information regarding the losses sustained by the Irish Protestant population. There were three rounds of depositions, one in December 1641 and two in 1642. Since the goal was to gather as much information as possible, women were accorded equal status to men when it came to the importance of testimony. Of all the depositions collected, about half were given by women. (Coolahan 2010, 140-142) Most of the depositions follow a very similar formula. The deposed provides an account of any injury or privation experienced, a list of goods lost or stolen, a list of names of any Catholic rebels they might know, and sometimes further information is provided at the end. (Coolahan 2010, Given the large number of these accounts, most of them tend to be formulaic and contain similar stories of woe. But there are details that can be found, especially in some of the more lurid accounts, that reveal the intricacy of the conflict. (Coolahan 2010, 144)

It must be noted that many elements of these depositions cast doubt on the strict accuracy of the statements. There was a lot of hatred between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland even before the rebellion, and the Protestants were devastated and angry by such a brutal attack. Inconsistencies in some accounts, overestimation of the dead, and most notably, multiple claims of ghosts arriving to enact revenge, make it clear that not every person deposed spoke the complete truth. However, the depositions become far more useful when it comes to gauging public sentiment and capturing the fears of the time.

The accounts of Baroness Offaly and Lady Elizabeth are striking additions to the pile of dictated accounts. Baroness Offaly’s letters were appended to a deposition given by a man who was involved in the siege on her castle, to add detail to his own story. Lady Elizabeth’s monograph was written by herself after she gave her deposition, adding far more detail of her own experience, which notably included commanding troops of her own against the Catholics. 

Locations of the depositions discussed below

Lettice Fitzgerald, Baroness Offaly

Lettice Fitzgerald, Baroness Offaly was the inheritor of lands, a castle, and title from her father, the Baron Offaly. She was of Old English background, part of the group of Irish who were descended from Medieval Norman invaders. This demographic had members on both sides of the conflict, but her landed position and her marriage to a New English (Protestant) nobleman put her squarely in the pro-England camp. It also meant that she had relatives on the Catholic side, including cousins who were leaders of the rebellion in her county. A local curate, Thomas Pickering, gave a detailed deposition of the military events that occurred surrounding the siege of her castle during the uprising, and it included a series of letters sent between her and her cousin, Lewis Dempsey, 2nd Viscount Clanmalier, who led the opposing forces. (Coolahan 2010, 166) The correspondence between them reveals the intricacies of loyalty and identity at the time.

The rebels identify themselves as “his Maiesties Loyall subiects, at the present imployed in his Highnesse service for the sacking of this your Castle,” (MS 814, fols. 117r-117v) taking ownership of a Royalist identity. From this introduction, it is clear that both sides of the conflict made use of rhetoric suggesting that they were loyal to the King. According to Clanmalier and his followers, the Protestant usurpers were the ones who were disloyal. From this kind of dialogue, it is easy to see how the enemies of Charles I were able to so easily turn the Irish rebellion into an inditement of his religious affiliation. Throughout the correspondence, Baroness Offaly refers to her cousin by his full title: “my Lord of Glanmaleroe” (an alternate spelling of Clanmalier). The conventions of English nobility remain intact; a rebellious Catholic Viscount is still a Viscount. It is clear that individuals on both sides of the conflict share elements of both Irish and English identities. (MS 814, fols. 117r-117v)

Baroness Offaly’s responses are rhetorically talented and consistent. She flips the rhetoric of loyalty to the Crown back on her cousin, claiming “I receaued your Letter wherin you threaten to sacke this my Castle by his Maiesties Authoritye, I haue ever beene a Loyall subiect, and a good Neighbour amoungst you, therefore I cannott but wonder at such an Assault.” (MS 814, fols. 117r-117v) If Clanmalier is sacking her castle in the name if the King, he cannot possibly be in the right if she too is a loyal subject. She also invokes their existing relationship as neighbors and emphasized her own goodwill. Protestants and Catholics lived together long before this conflict began and whether she is truthful or not regarding their existing goodwill, clearly there were long lasting relationships between the people involved that went beyond the bounds of politics or religion.

The Baroness also makes use of the rhetoric of religious right. While she generally avoids openly addressing the questions of politics and religion, she makes sure to assert her own godliness. She assures Clanmalier “I shall receaue a Crowne of Martyrdome dying Innocentlye. God I trust will take a poore widdow into his protection from all those which without Cause are risen vp against me.” (MS 814, fols. 117r-117v) She crafts an identity placing her divinely in the right and a poor innocent woman. Not only is the Baroness playing expertly on the identity politics of the day, she also takes advantage of the contemporary perceptions of women to dissuade Clanmalier from taking drastic action.

She concludes her final letter sent with a polite and understated threat: “And though I haue beene and still am desirous to avoyd the avoyding shedding of Christian blood, yet being provoked, your threatts shall noe whitte dismaye me.” (MS 814, fol. 117) The most interesting part of this statement comes from her lack of desire to shed Christian blood. The Baroness is unique in her assertion here that all are one in Christianity. In the midst of the lines being drawn, she focuses on emphasizing the similarities between the factions. In doing so, she again acknowledges the ties that bound many Irish Protestants and Catholics together.

Lady Elizabeth Dowdall

Kilfinny Castle, where Lady Elizabeth Dowdall was besieged

Lady Elizabeth Dowdall was also a widow, inheriting her lands and titles from her late husband, Sir John Dowdall. During the events of 1641, she led her own military troops and acted as a tactician and commander, attacking the Catholic forces and stealing back cattle that was taken from her tenants. She chronicles her deeds in a short holograph account of the siege that she wrote in 1642 soon after giving her deposition. (Coolahan 2010, 173) But it is the contrast between her two accounts that sheds light on her expert grasp of identity politics.

At the beginning of her deposition, she lists members of her household killed by the Irish Catholics. Notably, she identifies the victims as “three Irish <her seruants> men.” (MS 829, fols. 138-139) The most important aspect of their identity is their Irishness, but there is a caveat in parentheses that they are her servants. This would have been important to specify that they were loyal and likely Protestant so that they would be considered actual losses for the purposes of her deposition. It also demonstrates the suspicion surrounding an Irish identity. If these three men had grown up with a Gaelic background, they would have been immediately under suspicion. To add to the list, the Catholics “also tooke a gentleman that attended the said Lady deponent called Garrett ffitz Gerrald heretofore a protestant & made him turne papist or else he must be hangd.” (MS 829, fols. 138-139) Again, it is important for her to specify that this man was a Protestant and he was compelled by the “papists” to convert against his will. Religious identity was the professed dividing line, but was clearly often also associated with other aspects of Irish identity.

Like Baroness Offaly, Lady Elizabeth was perfectly aware of the uncertain position of royal authority in England and between the Irish Catholics and Protestants. She claims that “a reputed Colonell among the Rebbells say that they fought for the Kings perrogatiue and that they would beate all the english out of Ireland & that they would goe to London and then they would beate all the protestants out there too & so possesse the kingdome for them selues.” (MS 829, fols. 138-139) This goes further than the Baroness, painting the Catholics as an encroaching threat. But it also belies her complete awareness of the situation back in England. The rebels in her account claim to fight for the King, and they also plan to drive all Protestants out of London. This sounds exactly like the sorts of claims that were being made against Charles I back in Parliament that very year. While there is no way to know for sure, it seems likely that Lady Elizabeth was speaking with some level of anti-Royalist agenda when she gave this deposition. Certainly, she was quite capable of composing alternate versions of the same events, as is evident from her own account of the siege.

Most notably, in Lady Elizabeth’s own written account the Irish Catholics are painted purely as a military foe. There is no focus on politics and very little on religious identity. The goal here is something different. She is seeking to recount the story of her own heroic deeds as a military commander. One of the most telling differences comes from the state of the cattle owned by her tenants. In the deposition, they were all stolen, but in her own account she declares, “I celed [killed] ten of the enimy tock to prisnirs droue t[w]o hondred of the enimy of[f] ouer the riue[r] again tock all the pray of the touin [town], peligd [pillaged] the tone [town] and restored the Inglis ther catell.” (Coolahan 2010, 175) Clearly there were parties, including Lady Elizabeth, who may have exaggerated some of their losses to the rebels when deposed. This account also makes use of yet another identity that was assigned to the rebels by Protestants: that of a military threat.

Elizabeth Price

One of the more detailed and interesting depositions given by a woman was that of Elizabeth Price, an inhabitant of Armagh, in what is now Northern Ireland, who was captured by Phelim O’Neill, one of the main ringleaders of the uprising. Her account is an astonishing list of torture and violence committed both against her and many others while she was held captive. It provides a different perspective to that of Baroness Offaly or Lady Elizabeth, that of a non-noble Protestant woman living in one of the counties that suffered the worst of the violence and slaughter. While not noble born, Price is still clearly skilled at manipulating the story to serve her purpose and is very aware of the suspicions held by the English of anyone with Irish connections.

Price is also unique from the preceding reports in that she clearly understands Gaelic. Her deposition is full of recollections of the exact speech of the Catholic forces, including overheard conversations not directed at the Protestants who may have spoken only English. The most telling example is her claim that the Catholics told Protestants slated to be slaughtered to essentially go to hell: “The Rebells have often in her the deponents hearing in Irish words answered and said Cuir do anim in diouall, which in English is Give or bequeath thy soule to the Divell.” (MS 836, fols. 101-105) In this statement she acknowledges that the rebels were speaking in Gaelic.

Price’s report is full of vitriol against the Catholics and repeated confirmations of her own Englishness and protestantism. The oddest instance is her recollection of a supposed ghost sighting that occurred while she was prisoner. Standing with her captors by the banks of a river in which they had previously drowned other Protestants, “there appeared vnto them a vision or spiritt assumeing the shape of a woman waste highe vpright in the water naked with elevated & closed handes,…divulged and often repeated the word Revenge Revenge Revenge &c.” (MS 836, fols. 101-105) After seeing such a horrible apparition, the rebels sent a “Romish preist and a friere,” (MS 836, fols. 101-105) to speak to the ghost, who remained silent. But upon the questioning of a Protestant minister, who questioned it “In the name of the father, the sonne and the holy ghost,” (MS 836, fols. 101-105) the ghost again repeated its desire for revenge. This whole affair is clearly in some way contrived, but speaks strongly to Price’s desire to place herself on the side of divine right. In this story, the Catholics have no success and eventually leave the area in fear. But Elizabeth Price the faithful Protestant is in the right and has nothing to fear.

Later in her account, when describing more violence at the hands of the rebels, she claims that they were “Neither spareing English Scottish age nor sex, unles specially rescowed, or els by gods providence taken out of their murtherous hands.” (MS 836, fols. 101-105) While this certainly paints the Irish Catholics in a terrible light, it also serves the purpose of identifying her as being English. This is not the only time she does this in the deposition either. This astonishing and detailed negativity, complete with divine confirmation could be in large part self-preservation. Price is known to speak Gaelic and comes from a part of Ireland that at the time was largely Catholic. She is able to name most of the Irish Catholics who captured her, indicating that she knows them well as members of her community. This puts her at risk of suspicion from the English delegation, who may have been suspicious of the Irish Protestants, given the many overlapping layers of identity that connected them with their Catholic neighbors. By vehemently disavowing any Catholic identity and even making use of a ghost to put her on the right side of things, Elizabeth Price is looking out for herself.

A final element of Price’s account that stands out is her version of the Royalist agenda. According to her, the rebels believed “that thence forth there neuer should be any English King of Ireland any more.” (MS 836, fols. 101-105) This is a far cry from the civility of Baroness Offaly and the Royalist rebels of Lady Elizabeth. An explanation can be found in her further account: “And shee often heard the Common sort of Rebells say, that when they had distroyed all the English in Ireland they would goe with an Army into England and destroy the English there.” (MS 836, fols. 101-105) This phrasing is almost exactly the same as Lady Elizabeth’s account of the sentiments expressed by her besiegers. The one difference is the nuance of calling their victims English or Protestant. The former suggests anger and revolt, the latter speaks to political nuance that stretches beyond simple oppression. This division could easily have been one made by the deposed rather than the actual rebels themselves. Lady Elizabeth’s agenda was likely more educated and specific than that of Elizabeth Price, who probably knew far less about English politics, living on Northern Irish farmland. Price also calls her rebels “Common.” The class divisions that existed amongst the Catholics might have come into play here. From Baroness Offaly it is clear that there were leaders of the rebel movement who still held English titles and associations with the English nobility, but it is very plausible that the tenant farmers of Armagh did not feel the same affiliation. 

Depositions: Language and Bilingualism

Language was used by both sides as a cultural line in the sand, a way to distinguish Catholics from Protestants. But many people on both sides were bilingual, and this shows up in many more depositions than Elizabeth Price’s. Gaelic permeated English culture in Ireland, as can be shown by the consistent use in all depositions of the word “skeine” to mean knife. This is an anglicization of the Gaelic “scian,” which also means knife, and it clearly was used by Catholics and Protestants alike in their daily lives. And there were also members of the deposed who, like Price, admitted to bilingualism. Anne Read reported that “the Rebells in Action did call the s[ai]d Phillip Realy an English churle ackording to the Irish (badogh sasonogh) because he would offer to releeve any English.” (MS 831, fols. 39-40) This example also demonstrates a comparable attitude of suspicion on the part of the rebels against those showing any affiliation with the English, such as the aforementioned Patrick Reilly.

That suspicion is also demonstrated in another deposition given by Martha Culme, who spoke to the rebel leader Art McMahon and requested he speak in English: “she desired he would deliver himselfe in English for she vnderstood not Irish; he answered in English yt such as speake English should forfet ten shillings to ye king. wt king saith this Exmt have we yt will not alow the speaking of English? what king, saith he, but the Earle of Tirone?” (MS 834, fol. 111) This is yet another interesting rendition of the question of loyalty to the king: the 1st Earl of Tyrone was king of a large part of Ireland before the English conquest in the 16th century, and clearly some of the rebels felt more loyalty to his successor, the 2nd Earl, who was a rebel leader. It also reinforces the idea that Catholics were every bit as skeptical of English speakers as Protestants were of Gaelic speakers, regardless of religious affiliation.

On the opposite side of linguistic suspicion is the account of Joan Constable. An Irish rebel “carryed [Constable’s] sist r quite away saying hee would drowne her becawse she could speak irish, & would discov r their actes, wantes, & wordes if they suffered her to live.” (MS 836, fols. 87-90) Protestants who could speak Gaelic faced suspicion from both sides, as their bilingualism also made them a threat to Irish plots. Language is one of the most powerful indicators of the tensions of identity that were prevalent throughout Ireland during the uprising, and the 1641 depositions ably capture every side of the crisis. 

Conclusion

A seemingly distant event, the Irish uprising of 1641 loomed large as a tipping point to ignite the English Civil Wars. But the struggle to reform religious identity was felt in Ireland too, as Catholics and Protestants, enemies by faith, were forced to engage with the cultural and linguistic ties that bound them together and engendered suspicion on both sides. The voices of the women captured in the depositions taken by the English are unique for their time in that they give voice to a largely voiceless population, but also in that they so broadly were able to record the sentiments and experiences of an entire demographic at one point in history. 

Bibliography

Please find a link to the bibliography  here .

Kilfinny Castle, where Lady Elizabeth Dowdall was besieged