Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

class or colony? treatment of lower classes in relation to deportation.

Options
2»

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Thanks MarchDub

    did that apply to all elections or was it just parlimentary elections


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    CDfm wrote: »
    Thanks MarchDub

    did that apply to all elections or was it just parlimentary elections

    The Parliamentary franchise was the big win for women and the one that was most difficult to obtain - women had some limited access to voting in local elections from the 1890s when local government councils were set up under The Local Government [Ireland] Act of 1898. The suffragette Anna Haslam said that this Act was the most significant political revolution for women and a significant stepping stone to the parliamentary vote and in mobilizing other women into their cause.

    It seems incredible to us now but part of the problem for the suffragette movement was getting other women motivated into action. But most revolutions are like that - a few brave souls go out front and drag others along to achieve change.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Any idea of the number of adult male voters pre 1918 in Ireland- what was the extent of the franchise. How many voters Marchdub?

    It wasn't just votes for women was it, men didnt really have the vote either -did they.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    MarchDub wrote: »
    The Parliamentary franchise was the big win for women and the one that was most difficult to obtain - women had some limited access to voting in local elections from the 1890s when local government councils were set up under The Local Government [Ireland] Act of 1898. The suffragette Anna Haslam said that this Act was the most significant political revolution for women and a significant stepping stone to the parliamentary vote and in mobilizing other women into their cause.

    It seems incredible to us now but part of the problem for the suffragette movement was getting other women motivated into action. But most revolutions are like that - a few brave souls go out front and drag others along to achieve change.

    But wasnt it part of a larger civil rights movement too.

    And the activists werent only women but men too. Anna Haslams husband Thomas was quite an activist in his own right anyway here are letters from the Times 1906

    FROM THE ARCHIVES: A noisy protest in the gallery of the House of Commons in 1906 by women campaigning for the right to vote was criticised by The Irish Times in an editorial, drawing a prompt counter response from several letter writers, including Francis Sheehy Skeffington, who was later murdered by a British army officer during the Easter Rising. – JOE JOYCE
    Sir, – Will you allow me space for a few words of common sense in relation to the scene enacted in the House of Commons upon Wednesday night? Some comments in the Press remind me forcibly of a modification of the old saying to the effect that, while a man may steal a horse, a woman may not look over the wall. No one proposes to disenfranchise the entire male population of the United Kingdom on account of the disgraceful scenes that are sometimes exhibited, not, indeed, in the galleries, but upon the floor of the House, amongst the members themselves, and under the eyes of the Speaker; but because some half-dozen foolish women got an admission to the Ladies’ Gallery upon Wednesday night, the entire womanhood of the Kingdom are to be denied their constitutional rights indefinitely, if not, indeed, to the end of the world! I do not believe that the incident will have the effect of retarding the Parliamentary enfranchisement of women by a single day. Such incidents, if they were multiplied one hundred fold, would not have a feather’s weight, with reasonable men, in annulling the legitimate claims of women, which 400 members of the present House of Commons are pledged to support. Whether that support will embody itself in an Act during the existence of the present Parliament, I am not in a position to predict; perhaps the deputation to the Prime Minister upon the 19th of May may elicit an answer; but the cause of women is progressing by rapid strides throughout the whole civilised world and their Parliamentary enfranchisement cannot be much longer postponed at the bidding of an ever-diminishing number of opponents, even though consisting of both sexes. - Yours, etc., Thomas J. Haslam.
    125 Leinster road, 27th April, 1906.
    Sir, – I need not occupy much space in protesting against the tone of your leading article on the Woman’s Suffrage Demonstration, because your London correspondent, in a neighbouring column, has given an effective reply by telling us that, in the opinion of some “old Parliamentary hands,” the vigorous agitation which culminated in Wednesday’s disturbance cannot fail, in the end, to benefit the feminist cause. These old Parliamentarians are right, and the officials of the National Union of Woman’s Suffrage Societies, in deploring and repudiating the occurrence, are wrong. The question has passed beyond the stage of argument. Only hide-bound prejudice now stands in the way of woman’s emancipation, and that prejudice can only be overcome by vigorous and even violent attacks. That women have at last roused themselves to organise such attacks is a healthy sign, and should dispose of the worn-out argument that “women don’t want to vote”. A new earnestness and fervour have come into the movement, with the growing interest in it of the working-women. Mrs [Millicent] Fawcett , who will not be suspected of any strong sympathy with revolutionary methods, put the case admirably in her letter to the Morning Post in a few months ago. She said, in effect (I am quoting from memory), “We, middle-class women, have been agitating the suffrage question for a long time, in our own middle-class way, and have made very little progress. Now the working-women have taken up the question, and are agitating it in their own way. It is not our way, but it may be a much more effective way.” And she went on to instance, as a parallel case, the difference in methods and in success between Butt and Parnell.
    Some suffragists may be too “respectable” to approve of the methods of the working-women; but they may have to choose between respectability and efficiency. Napoleon won his battles by breaking all the rules of warfare. – Yours, etc.,
    Francis S. Skeffington
    8 Airfield road, Rathgar, 27th April, 1906


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    CDfm wrote: »
    But wasnt it part of a larger civil rights movement too.

    And the activists werent only women but men too. Anna Haslams husband Thomas was quite an activist in his own right anyway here are letters from the Times 1906

    Not sure what point you are making? The issue for women was that there was a gender specific law which excluded them from voting - as stated in the 1832 Reform Bill - so that the later Reform Bills of the nineteenth century which spread the franchise for men did not apply to women. This was a serious hurdle that had to be overcome in order to achieve the parliamentary vote for women.

    Yes, of course there were men involved in the women's movement and Francis Sheehy Skeffington was probably one of the better known [his belief in equality under the law is why he incorporated his wife's surname into his own].


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Me neither, but there seems to have been 2 movements which were class based.

    Anna Haslam (nice memorial to her and Thomas in Stephens Green btw) was middle class of Quaker background and I wonder if that influenced her thinking.

    Countess Markievicz was out with the Irish Citizens Army in 1916 and her election reminiscent of O'Connels.

    What my point is that while no women had the vote, very few men did, and those that did had it because they were property owners - so you had to issues on the franchise , gender and class.

    So the gender issue was not homogenous and neither was the class issue. The class issue was the more predominant one and affected people irrespective of religion etc and gender. WWI and the resultant franchise changes may have been more of a catalyst for change then the suffragette movement. The suffragette movement did have male supporters.

    Now on numbers -pre 1918 does anyone know how many or what percentage of the Irish adult male population had the vote?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    I have a table on the actual numbers of the franchise for all of the then UK -GB and Ireland - and have been trying to cut and paste it from a scan but it doesn't seem to work within this box. For some reason the figures reproduce jumbled together. So here is a summary for Ireland -

    757,849 voters in 1900

    686,661 voters in 1906

    683,767 voters in 1910.

    1,926,274 voters in 1918.


    The decline from 1900 may have been because of emigration?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Thanks Marchdub - I pick up more history here than I ever did studying it :)

    So the electorate in 1918 was women over 30 and guys over 21 - so we could probably have to assume it was around 30% of adult males pre 1918.

    Would that be about right?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    Yes all males over 21 and females over 30 got the vote in 1918.

    I looked up the 1911 census and I see that the total population for Ireland was was 4,390,219 - 2,192,048 were male and 2,198,171 were female. So can just about figure from that how many males were enfranchised prior to 1918.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    MarchDub wrote: »
    Yes all males over 21 and females over 30 got the vote in 1918.

    I looked up the 1911 census and I see that the total population for Ireland was was 4,390,219 - 2,192,048 were male and 2,198,171 were female. So can just about figure from that how many males were enfranchised prior to 1918.

    Yup -thats the one :)


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    So now we know that the voting seemed to be about equal but still up until 1918 you had around 30% of the male population voting.

    Did that make Ireland a colony as you had similar voting to the UK.Hardly democratic, but what was the composition of the electorate?

    Or do you need to go back further.

    1800 you had the Act of Union when the Irish Parliment voted itself out of existence.


Advertisement