1851 Census Returns: Newry Barony

Parish etc	Area acres	Pop 1841	Pop 1851	– Pop	Homes ’41	Homes ’51	No. of fewer Homes
Ardarragh	456	314	252	62	53	44	9
B’holland L	292	273	260	13	49	44	5
B’holland U	363	335	315	20	66	55	11
B’craig	682	217	238	+21	40	45	+5
Benagh	680	593	484	109	100	92	8
Carnacally	516	442	317	125	81	71	10
C’haugh	342	63	97	+34	12	18	+6
Carnmeen	362	182	137	45	33	29	4
Castle Enigan	253	201	143	58	38	31	7
C’ramer	510	341	255	86	62	51	11
Commons	58	458	414	44	76	72	4
Corcreechy	439	209	171	38	29	31	+2
Creeve	266	252	227	25	48	41	7
Crobane	58	514	443	61	94	84	10
Croreagh	306	163	167	+4	28	30	+2
Curley	382	207	155	52	33	29	4
Damolly	503	283	249	34	54	46	8
Derryboy	304	151	124	27	26	25	1
D’lackagh	63	353	312	41	72	64	8
Desert	683	485	398	87	89	71	18
D’cashellone	300	141	118	23	26	23	3
Edenmore	396	315	271	44	62	56	6
Finnard	602	339	282	57	61	60	1
Gransha	588	271	201	70	54	42	12
Greenan	633	570	463	107	118	100	18
Lisduff	278	129	98	31	21	17	4
Lisnaree	314	184	153	31	34	31	3
Lisserboy	204	99	84	15	21	19	2
Lou’hhorne	465	211	149	62	39	31	8
Ouley	444	215	130	85	39	28	11
Ryan	391	305	173	132	61	29	32
Savalbeg	366	129	78	51	21	13	8
Savalmore	303	204	159	45	34	28	6
Sheeptown	500	400	294	106	58	37	21
Shinn	463	346	223	123	61	43	18
Turmore	374	191	173	18	34	34	0
Totals	16141	10091	8207	1884	1867	1564	303
N’ry in Down		8099	9564	+1465	1430	1412	18
Totals		18099	15771	419	3297	2976	321

It is accepted as the duty of the historical statistician to elucidate and explain – and then to point out areas worthy of further study.   This we now attempt.

The table is an abstract from part of the 1851 Census Returns of the Barony of the Lordship of Newry. Column 1 names townlands and their parishes: 2 is its extent in Irish Acres: 3 the total population from the 1841 Census: 4 that for 1851: 5 the population difference over that decade: 6 the number of occupied homes as returned in 1841 for that parish: 7 the same for 1851: finally, 8 is the difference in numbers of homes in that parish at the end of that decade.

The bottom three rows are the various totals: then the equivalent figures for that part of Newry in County Down (i.e. excluding Ballybot and the West end of the river):  then finally those latter two totalled.

The reader should appreciate that there is a precision herein implied that is somewhat unlikely: and that I and others may have erred in reproducing even these figures. It is best therefore to draw general conclusions and encourage areas of further study.

CONCLUSIONS:

Had not this decade represented the worst period of Hunger and suffering in all of Irish history, one might imagine one was witnessing the fastest and most dramatic period of urbanisation. Whereas the rural parishes experienced a dramatic ~20% population fall, urban Newry (East) had a corresponding increase (last three rows)!  The reality is more complex;  for example, a landlord-driven ‘land clearance coupled with a loss of faith in the land, unparalled disease and starvation deaths and emigration to England, USA and Canada and beyond.  The latter will be illustrated in an article shortly.

The total size of these population changes too is not clear from the context. One must remember that it followed a sustained period of rapid increase over the previous half century and more.   The fall is thus much more significant than it might have been.

Any rational interpretation however, gives the lie to those blinkered historians who allege that our area was little affected by the Great Hunger. Nothing could be further from the truth: and we must keep in mind that South Armagh and Newry (West – or Ballybot) suffered even more.

Hidden within these figures is some terrible suffering: and information requiring further study. How did Newry (Down) sustain an extra 1465 persons with 18 fewer homes in 1851 compared with 1841?  Why were the parishes of Ryan, Carnacally, Sheeptown, Benagh, Shinn and Savalmore worst affected in population decrease?  If it was proximity to Newry, why then did Carneyhaugh and Ballinacraig do best, with an increase both in population and numbers of occupied homes?

Why were there less occupied homes in 1851? Clearly a great number had died or emigrated, leaving deserted homes behind. But in addition, politicians of the time were almost exclusively of the landed classes who then wanted to ‘clear’ their ‘encumbered estates’. Whether they saw them as encumbered with debts or with impoverished tenants made little difference when policies of clearance and evictions became the norm. The final column shows a considerable reduction in the housing stock and a comparison of that with column 5 will give some indication of the density of occupation of those former homes.

One can only guess at the numbers of extra deaths in these parishes compared with the numbers of emigrants.

Other conclusions drawn by readers and posted on Discussions would be most welcome.

---

While any noticed errors of mine would be accepted  and corrected, it would be best to view this article as an indication of trends. 

And if you’re from any of the districts affected (especially the parishes named above as the worst affected),  could you contribute to the body of information by further study?  

Famine times are greatly neglected by local historians!