Why were some forms of opposition more successful than others in the period 1798-1921?

Authors Avatar

Why were some forms of opposition more successful than others in the period 1798-1921?

The Act of Union, 1801. Ireland was to be joined to Great Britain into a single kingdom, the Dublin parliament was to be abolished. Ireland was to be represented at Westminster (all were Anglicans), the Anglican Church was to be recognised as the official Church of Ireland, no Catholics were to be allowed to hold public office and there was to be no Catholic Emancipation. Immediately we can see from this that any form of opposition would be to destroy this act. Fundamentally it destroyed all catholic rights and forced them to renounce their Catholic faith and take on a Protestant one.

In Ireland Daniel O'Connell developed a reputation for his radical political views. By the early 1920's the Irish people started to listen to O'Connell's views and he gathered a large group of supporters. O'Connell had many aims in his political career. O'Connell's goal was to repeal against the act of union. When the Act of Union was passed in 1801 it did not help the Irish. It simply brought problems and distrust to the Irish people. O'Connell organised a meeting to discuss the repeal of the Act of Union, three quarters of a million Irish turned up. They were known as 'Monster Meetings'. We can see that O'Connell successfully created an Irish nation movement and completely changed the British view of the Irish. The British now had a certain amount of respect for the Irish and even feared and threatened their movement. This support from the people could show us the later success that O’Connell has in his opposition, as a movement without opposition would ultimately fail, like the Easter Uprising. At the height of O'Connell's support he arranged a monster meeting where two million people were expected to turn up. But the government considered this dangerous so they sent soldiers to stop it. The meeting was called off because O'Connell wanted peace. Not standing up to the British government lost O'Connell support and the Irish lost the will to fight. In 1834 O'Connell put forward for a debate in the House of Commons. He wanted the repeal of the Act of Union however there was much opposition In 1933 the government passed the Coercion Act which gave the police the power to jail without trial, this gave them the opportunity to break up meeting. This was a huge blow to O'Connell.  We can see that O'Connell was never overly successful in his stated aims as a politician. He did successfully manage to get Catholic emancipation passed but this was effectively cancelled out buy the raise of the voting price. He also failed to pass the repeal of the act of union. Daniel O'Connell may not have been totally successful in his main two stated aims. However, these stated aims were merely the surface of O'Connell's goals. Daniel O'Connell created an Irish Nation movement and successfully managed to give the Irish people hope, pride, and an identity. He made the Irish people stand up and be noticed by the British. Daniel O'Connell single handily changed the way politics was run.

Join now!

In 1845 "the Great Famine" had begun. All the Irish crops had become disease and became uneatable. The situation in Ireland was starvation. The nationalist cause was non-existence in this period because of the current situation. The Famine did highlight the fundamental flaws in British leadership, which helped the Nationalist cause. In 1850 John Mitchell, a Protestant, set up a Republican organisation the Young Ireland who set out to "get the British out of Ireland" his campaign was a failure on the whole. Nationalist leadership was difficult to find in this time. The Irish peasantry was still recovering from famine ...

This is a preview of the whole essay