How effectively did Irish Catholic and nationalist leaders advance their cause in the years 1801-1921?

Authors Avatar

 DAVID WHITEHEAD

How effectively did Irish Catholic and nationalist leaders advance their cause in the years 1801-1921?

The Act Of Union in 1800 meant there was no longer any Irish institution capable of advancing either an Irish nationalist or catholic cause. As a result the advancement of those causes depended on influencing the British Government directly. The catholic cause initially focused on securing emancipation for the catholic population and aimed to improve the lives and rights of Catholics throughout the period. The nationalist cause fought for greater Irish autonomy with full independence as its greater aim. In evaluating the effectiveness of the Irish leaders Daniel O’Connell, Charles Stuart Parnell and Eamon De Valera we need to focus on the achievement of their aims and their advancement of the respective causes. In this evaluation we will concentrate on their legislative changes, ability to mobilise the population and impact on Westminster.    

O’Connell’s by-election victory at County Clare in 1828 re-ignited and concluded the debate within the British government over catholic emancipation. The Emancipation Act of 1829 was seen as a small concession when faced with the prospect of further, more violent catholic agitation. Though O’Connell deemed this a triumph its effect was as negative as it was positive depending on your financial wealth. The increase in the voting qualification, which denied the majority of Catholics the vote, can be seen as O’Connell’s first failure. But in the 1830 election he made emancipation work to the catholic advantage as thirty O’Connellite MP’s were returned. However given his lack of influence O’Connell was unable to achieve a repeal of the Act Of Union or any significant social reforms for Ireland. The passing of the Coercion Act for Ireland, (1833) described as ‘one of the toughest pieces of law-and-order legislation to affect Ireland in the nineteenth century’ (O’Day), is an example of O’Connell’s lack of influence in Westminster. Though aiding the Great Reform Act in 1831 did bring greater fairness to British and Irish democracy. In 1835 O’Connell pre-empted future Irish leaders by taking advantage of a weak British government. As apart of the ‘Litchfield House Compact’ the O’Connellites earned greater influence over the Whig government. However, given the undesirability of a Tory government O’Connell could not exert too much pressure on the fragile Whig government. Given the opposition to Irish reform on both sides of the House of Commons perhaps acts such as the ineffective Irish Tithe Commutation Act were as much as could be expected of O’Connell during his years devoted to the parliamentary process.  

Join now!

From 1840 O’Connell, annoyed by lack of progress, turned his focus to repeal through popular mobilization. Because of this and the strong Tory government of 1841 Irish issues did not feature heavily in parliament. Another Irish leader did not raise these issues effectively until Parnell in 1875. This was due to the Potato Famine that blighted Ireland in the late 1840’s and Gladstone’s motivation to ‘pacify Ireland’, as he put it, following the 1868 Liberal election victory, which led to land reform and the disestablishment of The Church of Ireland.

Parnell became leader of the established ...

This is a preview of the whole essay