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

Exile 1798

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Read this article and then work out the numbers. http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22131344-38200,00.html?from=public_rss

this claims that 70% of convicts sent to oz were English and 24% were Irish. In the mid 19th century the population of England was about twice that of Ireland, yet three times more English people were sent to Botany bay?

Also, read the article i posted earlier, it talks about white slave/indentured servents coming from the Netherlands and England, no mention of the Irish.

i am not saying that what you posted is not true, but it is a misleading way of putting it. the poor were being exported from all over europe, all the articles about the poor Irish are written in a misleading manner to portray how poor and downtrodden the Irish were, when in reality they were no more poor and down trodden than any other of the poor around europe.

The prisons in England were over crowded with petty criminals, and as they came from the poorest of English society we might wonder how many of them were infact Irish immigrants?

The other thing to note is that some of the earliest boatloads of convicts to Australia contained not merely petty criminals but Irish political prisoners - those who were accused of taking part in the 1798 Rebellion or of being sympathizers. 50 years later much of the leadership of Young Ireland were also shipped off to Australia in chains.

Exile 1798

CDfm wrote: »

an interesting point - did people make money out of it????

Certainly there was money made, how much and where did it go I suppose is the question.

I have to read more on this subject but I've heard it said in documentaries that Cromwell made a personal fortune out of selling Irish people into slavery.

Fratton Fred

Exile 1798 wrote: »

The prisons in England were over crowded with petty criminals, and as they came from the poorest of English society we might wonder how many of them were infact Irish immigrants?

The other thing to note is that some of the earliest boatloads of convicts to Australia contained not merely petty criminals but Irish political prisoners - those who were accused of taking part in the 1798 Rebellion or of being sympathizers. 50 years later much of the leadership of Young Ireland were also shipped off to Australia in chains.

Like the Tolpuddle martyrs you mean?

CDfm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Like the Tolpuddle martyrs you mean?

can you explain and with numbers for what happened in the uk

I mean was deportation used for political purposes in the UK? Scotland ?

Press ganging sailors etc?

Fuinseog

'To Hell or Barbadoes' is a good book. you still have the redlegs there.

Fratton Fred

CDfm wrote: »

can you explain and with numbers for what happened in the uk

I mean was deportation used for political purposes in the UK? Scotland ?

Press ganging sailors etc?

Press gangs are something different.

Deportation was used exactly the same all the UK, undesirables were shipped off to the far flung corners of the globe. Many were street children swept up off the streets of London, some were straight forward criminals, a lot, in the case of the Tolpuddle Martyrs were political.

CDfm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Press gangs are something different.

Deportation was used exactly the same all the UK, undesirables were shipped off to the far flung corners of the globe. Many were street children swept up off the streets of London, some were straight forward criminals, a lot, in the case of the Tolpuddle Martyrs were political.

Do you have any ideas of numbers or specific events.

Fratton Fred

Well, the Tolpuddle Martyrs are a good example.

The Irish had the luxury of blaming the British for everything, it was very black and white. In England it was more of a class struggle and the one thing the establishment feared more than anything, was revolution. (Look up the Peterloo massacre as an example of how uprisings were feared and put down).

Joining a trade union was illegal and anyone found guilty of membership was deported, the men from Tolpuddle being the most famous example.

The TUC have an exhibition/memorial there if you ever fancy a trip to Dorset.

I'm posting from a mobile so don't really have good search facilities, but I can happily dig something out.

CDfm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Well, the Tolpuddle Martyrs are a good example.

Ten twelve how many

The Irish had the luxury of blaming the British for everything, it was very black and white

.

I agree we know little of UK history.

I'm posting from a mobile so don't really have good search facilities, but I can happily dig something out.

Please do and lets see.

You might say its a class struggle but that is fine in an industrialised country but we are talking agrarian economy. So its good to see.

Fratton Fred

There were only six Tolpuddle martyrs, but that is only one incident, but it is used as an example to show how organised labour was treated. Their crime was swearing an oath of allegiance to a society of workers.

I don't see how you can differentiate between a peasant on a Kildare estate or a 12 year old worker in a Manchester cotton mill, they were all treated with equal amounts of contempt by the ruling classes.

getz

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There were only six Tolpuddle martyrs, but that is only one incident, but it is used as an example to show how organised labour was treated. Their crime was swearing an oath of allegiance to a society of workers.

I don't see how you can differentiate between a peasant on a Kildare estate or a 12 year old worker in a Manchester cotton mill, they were all treated with equal amounts of contempt by the ruling classes.

from the rev patrick bronte a irishman[father of charlot,ann,and emily] living in haworth 1820s,children as young as five were chained to the mill owners weaving machines so they would not walk away,many died in accidents and fires,patrick bronte campaigned and won his case that no child over nine need to work over ten hours day, 41% of children died before the age of five

Exile 1798

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There were only six Tolpuddle martyrs, but that is only one incident, but it is used as an example to show how organised labour was treated. Their crime was swearing an oath of allegiance to a society of workers.

I don't see how you can differentiate between a peasant on a Kildare estate or a 12 year old worker in a Manchester cotton mill, they were all treated with equal amounts of contempt by the ruling classes.

Many accounts of Ireland at the time give the picture of the relationship between peasants and their Land Lords as resembling more of the system of serfdom from the Feudal period then the normal Tenant/Land Lord relationship that existed in most of Europe.

I understand that there's a certain type of person who takes great delight in casually dismissing the troubling nature of the English system in Ireland. I'd say such joys are better confined to the After Hours forum, and the History forum should be a place for discussion of historical facts.

CDfm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There were only six Tolpuddle martyrs, but that is only one incident, but it is used as an example to show how organised labour was treated. Their crime was swearing an oath of allegiance to a society of workers.

Under what legislation were they prosecuted.

I would like to get a handle on the similarities and differences between the UK and Irish as we hear that differences existed so what were they.

I mean they were no longer serfs so what were they

I don't see how you can differentiate between a peasant on a Kildare estate or a 12 year old worker in a Manchester cotton mill, they were all treated with equal amounts of contempt by the ruling classes.

Its a bit silly to - and the British did have child executions too.

getz

CDfm wrote: »

Under what legislation were they prosecuted.

I would like to get a handle on the similarities and differences between the UK and Irish as we hear that differences existed so what were they.

I mean they were no longer serfs so what were they



Its a bit silly to - and the British did have child executions too.

in parts of london you could be shipped off to aus just for walking over a bridge in london after ten pm,recently 1946 ,many children orphans were shipped off to australia and were used as farm slaves and sexually abused,for which both the australian and british goverment have now apologized

CDfm

This is an off topic issue

But I think Fred has hit on a very good issue that deserves a thread in it own right.

So we have serfs/peasants in the UK until the Black Death and you had the Irish and Irish plantations and the evolution of Civil Rights and Voting rights.

Brian do you think we can split these off from Slaves and see what happens.

Fratton Fred

Exile 1798 wrote: »

I understand that there's a certain type of person who takes great delight in casually dismissing the troubling nature of the English system in Ireland. I'd say such joys are better confined to the After Hours forum, and the History forum should be a place for discussion of historical facts.

Discussion of historical facts, as long as they are to your liking?

There are a lot of people who name themselves after historical events who like to sensationalise certain events under British rule for their own purposes.

There is a republicans r us forum that may suit you better.

This is a discussion board, shall we drop the squabbling and discuss?

brianthebard

Fred and Exile, there's no need for this squabbling. This thread was split off to create a discussion on the shared experiences of the Irish and British peasantry/working class in the 18th/19th centuries, specifically in the context of deportation. There is plenty of scope and room for a variety of positions and ideologies with regards to the historiography and this could be a rewarding conversation for a number of people. So there should be no more pettyness or squabbling or calling out of any kind from this point on. Thank you. Mod.

CDfm

So England wasnt a fun place to live either. Around 1800 you had 222 offences punishable by death . There are even reports that a child of 7 Michael Hammond was executed along with his 11 year old sister.

The Bloody Code lasted from around the 1400s to 1850.

After US independence transportation to North America ceased. You did have political deportations too. Like this one the Yorkshire rebellion

http://www.zyworld.com/albionmagazineonline/yorkshire_rebellion.htm

The Yorkshire Rebellion of the first half of April 1820 was one of the largest protest-insurrections of the classic industrial revolution era, and yet its scale and background remain only partially understood. Geographically confined to the West Riding of Yorkshire, it constituted outbursts in at least three different towns, involving up to 2,500 men. It can therefore be seen as the largest physical force rebellion of the pre-Chartist era of English history. Equally, if considered as part of the simultaneous and connected revolt in the West of Scotland, it was the largest pre-Chartist rebellion in British history. The purpose of this paper is to describe the Yorkshire Rebellion of 1820, to set it in its wider political and economic contexts, and to offer, where possible, causal explanations for its origins. [See also E.P. Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class (1968) and Alan Brooke and Lesley Kipling, Liberty or Death: Radicals, Republicans and Luddites c. 1793-1823 (1993).]

Aftermath of the Yorkshire Rebellion


Consistent with early nineteenth-century practice, the courts were not particularly vindictive in dealing with rebel workingmen in England. In September 1820 they reached an agreement with twenty-nine Yorkshire rebels that a common plea of guilty would save them from the death sentence. A similar bargain was struck with Thomas Farrimond, who had been captured later in 1821. The goal of the authorities was to use show trials to make examples of rebels, especially identifiable leaders, and to avoid creating martyrs. Death penalties were pronounced by a judge wearing a black hood, and these were later commuted to transportation to the Australian penal colonies or, in some cases, pardons after a period of detention in the hulks.


Interestingly, when the twenty-five Yorkshire rebels held in York Castle on charges of High Treason petitioned the Home Secretary to allow their families to visit them, 75% of them could sign their names, which indicates that they were literate. [Petition to Sidmouth, 29 May 1820, P.R.O., H.O. 20/1.] Then, in 1821, only eleven Yorkshire rebels were transported to Hobart aboard the convict ship Lady Ridley. During the voyage they once again petitioned their captors, but this time in very deferential terms. [P.R.O., Adm 102/42.] One convict, John Lindley, brought with him to Australia testimonials to his good character signed by about 100 Huddersfield area residents. [T.S.A., Colonial Sec. Office 1/267/6396.] The rebels certainly had a demonstrated propensity for litigious behaviour, as shown by their use of petitions and testimonials.


Once in Australia, most of the Yorkshire rebels passed through the early, worst stages of the convict system, settled down to a respectable life, received pardons, and became productive citizens. The exceptions were William Comstive, Joseph Chapiel, and Benjamin Rogers, who committed multiple offenses in the penal colony. By contrast, one of the Yorkshire rebels, Joseph Firth, made a fortune so large that in 1829 he owned 900 acres at Brown's River, as well as a farm and four houses in the Hobart area. In general, the Yorkshire rebels of 1820 received good reports in the penal colony, most had tickets of leave by 1825, and pardons followed in the 1830s. [T.S.A., CON 31, P.R.O., 10/44-50, H.O. 10/38 and H.O. 10/31 which, for example, contains the free pardon of William Rice dated 6 June 1837.] [See Note 2 for a summary of the fates of the Yorkshire Rebels.]

Irish rebellions had some popular support and at some level to the famine these were related to achieving a reversal of the changes brought about by the various plantations and political system- as in bring back the old ruling class and tribal system,

So I think a good starting point would be to approximate the rights and living conditions that the lower classes had.

getz

in 1819 the working class did not have a vote[only the rich and land owners] 60,000 men woman and children went to meet and try and form a union so they could have working class say.they were attacked by 1,500 infantry with fixed bayonets and swords,650 men and 170 femails were seriously injured, and 18 dead[this was known as the peterloo massacre,in victorian england the average age in working class london was 28 years. so many died instead of burying them ,some were dropped down the sewers.

CDfm

So who had the vote

men & women -40 shilling freeholders?catholics, jews didnt until 1829 and 1860 respectively.

What were the rules-some women did.

I have often wondered what the split was and say out of the uk and ireland populations what percentage of the population had the vote?

Who was in and who was out?

(Brian should we exclude from this discussion on whether or not various groups like the United Irishmen just wanted to be the new ruling class)

getz

woman did not get the vote in england untill 1918,,during the time of the manchester martyrs one in every ten in manchester was irish

Fuinseog

on the subject of slaves does anyone know anything about the cumha, the female slave in ancient ireland?

brianthebard

CDfm wrote: »

So who had the vote

men & women -40 shilling freeholders?catholics, jews didnt until 1829 and 1860 respectively.

What were the rules-some women did.

Presbyterians were also excluded from voting under the Penal laws, emancipation of catholics also gave them the vote. I think women who inherited land were allowed vote but that was changed in the 1830s or 40s, I don't really know tbh.

(Brian should we exclude from this discussion on whether or not various groups like the United Irishmen just wanted to be the new ruling class)

I think we'll just let the conversation evolve by itself, if you want to talk about splinter groups there's no problem, the young Irelanders are comparable to the charterists or peterloo congregation in ways imo, they're all seeking to create a change in the status quo.

CDfm

getz wrote: »

woman did not get the vote in england untill 1918,,during the time of the manchester martyrs one in every ten in manchester was irish

I am almost sure that you had limited suffrage for women pre 1918 based on property ownership

this is how I saw voting

Pre 1918 UK & Ireland
Men : Limited based on Property but I dont know
Women : Also based on property ownership (but circa 1870) the rules changed -the changes caused the Womens suffrage movement and at some level women with property wanted the vote back based on class.
Womens ratepayers alllowed vote in local elections after 1865

Women householders and university graduates had the vote??

1918 : Ireland and UK
Men : As a result of WWI all men over 21 & women over 30? given the vote based on if 1 million soldiers come back to the Uk and dont have the vote they will be mighty pissed off
Women : Some women & I dont know the rules but it was women over 30 and those who were householders I think

1921: Ireland only
Women :All Women over 21 get vote on Independence

1928 :

Women :UK gave the vote to all women over 21

Does anyone know the rules and numbers of voters and could someone explain what they mean?

I have found a link

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/struggle_democracy/getting_vote.htm

Voting rights before 1832
In early-19th-century Britain very few people had the right to vote. A survey conducted in 1780 revealed that the electorate in England and Wales consisted of just 214,000 people - less than 3% of the total population of approximately 8 million. In Scotland the electorate was even smaller: in 1831 a mere 4,500 men, out of a population of more than 2.6 million people, were entitled to vote in parliamentary elections. Large industrial cities like Leeds, Birmingham and Manchester did not have a single MP between them, whereas 'rotten boroughs' such as Dunwich in Suffolk (which had a population of 32 in 1831) were still sending two MPs to Westminster. The British electoral system was unrepresentative and outdated.

'A leap in the dark' (Punch cartoon)
Document | Transcript The Reform Acts
The three parliamentary reform Acts introduced in 19th-century Britain (in 1832, 1867 and 1884 respectively) satisfied moderate reformers rather than radicals. The Prime Minister, Lord Grey, supported reform to 'prevent the necessity of revolution' and was responsible for the first (or 'Great') Reform Act of 1832. However, the Act gave the vote in towns only to men who occupied property with an annual value of £10, which excluded six adult males out of seven from the voting process.

The Tory politician Lord Derby described the second Reform Act (1867) as 'a leap in the dark'. And yet only two in every five Englishmen had the vote in 1870. Even the third Reform Act (1884) - which enfranchised all male house owners in both urban and rural areas and added 6 million people to the voting registers - fell some way short of introducing universal manhood suffrage.
Third Reform Act:
Gladstone writes to the queen
Document | Transcript

Chartist demonstration in Birmingham, 1848
Document (252k) | Transcript Campaigns for universal suffrage
Radical reformers pressed for more extensive parliamentary reform throughout the 19th century. The six-point programme of the Chartists included demands for universal suffrage, annual parliaments, and voting by secret ballot. During the 1830s and 1840s, when Chartism was at its most influential, meetings to discuss 'constitutional reform' took place in towns and cities across Britain.

In the mid 1860s the Reform League - though less clearly committed to universal suffrage than the Chartists had been - also mobilised support outside Parliament for electoral reform. Throughout this period, election campaigns were sometimes disrupted by unrest and rioting.
Reform League poster, 1867
Document | Transcript

Election violence in Carlisle, 1841
Document | Transcript Conclusions
For many people, 19th-century parliamentary reform was a disappointment because political power was still left in the hands of the aristocracy and the middle classes. Universal suffrage, with voting rights for women (though not for those under 30), did not arrive in Britain until February 1918. By the time of the third Reform Act in 1884, Britain was less democratic than many other countries in Europe.

The changes made in the British political system between 1832 and 1884 were nevertheless important. The electorate increased substantially in size from approximately 366,000 in England and Wales in 1831 to slightly fewer than 8 million in 1885. Parliamentary seats were redistributed to give greater weight to larger towns and cities. Also, the Ballot Act of 1872, which introduced secret ballots, made it far more difficult for voters to be bribed or intimidated.

So pre 1831 in England just 3% (366,000) of the population had the vote, 1831 it was 1 in 7 men, which increased to (8,000,000) in 1885 and was 2,000,000 voters pre the 1885 reform.

This was approx 32% of the male adult population pre 1918 and the suffragits were people who supported universal suffrage.

Hardly democratic.

What I am having trouble finding is voting rights for women and voting in Ireland?

CDfm

I found this on the Irish Times geneology site.

So up to 1829 you had no Irish Catholic or Presbyterian Voters because that was pre-emancipation.

I can't find numbers of voters for Ireland though.

Bearing in mind that the Penal Laws restricted property ownership by catholics -it also restricted voting qualifications. You had to be a freeholder to vote ie tenants did not have voting rights.

It was feckin hard to become a voter but Daniel O'Connell got elected, Parnell & his bunch got elected so emancipation etc and the Land Acts did increase the voter lists and if Ireland had been split along sectarian lines tribally that would not have happened.


This records 32,614 owners of land in Ireland in 1876

So even if you doubled that figure to take into account urban dwellers etc you still would only have around 2 % of the population or say 4% of the adult population entiitled to vote.

Does anyone have any accurate information on this?

1740: Protestant householders

This applies to parts of Counties Antrim, Armagh, Derry, Donegal and Tyrone. Arranged by barony and parish, it gives names only. Parts are at the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, The Genealogical Office, the National Library of Ireland and the Representative Church Body Library.






1796: Spinning Wheel Premium Entitlement Lists

As part of a government scheme to encourage the linen trade, free spinning wheels or looms were granted to individuals planting a certain area of land with flax.

The lists of those entitled to the awards, covering almost 60,000 individuals, were published in 1796, and record only the names of the individuals and the civil parish in which they lived. The majority, were in Ulster, but some names appear from every county except Dublin and Wicklow. A microfiche index to the lists is available in the National Archives, and The Public Record Office of Northern Ireland.





1876: Landowners in Ireland

Return of owners of land of one acre and upwards ... , London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1876. [Reissued by The Genealogical Publishing Company, Baltimore, 1988].

This records 32,614 owners of land in Ireland in 1876, identifying them by province and county; the entries record the address of the owner, along with the extent and valuation of the property. Only a minority of the population actually owned the land they occupied, but the work is invaluable for those who did.

Various Dates: Freeholders

Freehold property is held either by fee simple, with absolute freedom to dispose of it, by fee tail, in which the disposition is restricted to a particular line of heirs, or simply by life tenure. From the early eighteenth century freeholders lists were drawn up regularly, usually because of the right to vote which went with freehold of property over a certain value. It follows that such lists are of genealogical interest only for a small minority of the population. Click here for a county-by-county inventory of Freemen and voters lists.

Voters Lists and Poll Books

Voters lists cover a slightly larger proportion of the population than Freeholders lists, since freehold property was not the only determinant of the franchise. In particular, freemen of the various corporation towns and cities had a right to vote in some elections at least. Since membership of a trade guild carried with it admission as a freeman, and this right was hereditary, a wider range of social classes is covered. Poll books are the records of votes actually cast in elections. Click here for a county-by-county inventory of Freemen and voters lists.

Electoral Records

No complete collection of the electoral lists used in the elections of this century exists. This is unfortunate, since they can be of great value in tracing living relatives, listing as they do all eligible voters by townland and household. The largest single collection of surviving electoral registers is to be found in the National Archives, but even here the coverage of many areas is quite skimpy. Click here for a county-by-county inventory of Freemen and voters lists.

Valuations:

Local valuations, and re-valuations, of property were carried out with increasing frequency from the end of the eighteenth century, usually for electoral reasons. The best of these record all householders.

So what were the numbers of electors at the various times?

At one level it sort of explains the Irish volunteering for the British Army in WWI - to be recognised as equals so democracy was an underlying factor.

MarchDub

There seems to be some confusion on this thread regarding the various parliamentary Acts regarding Catholic rights. Catholics were denied voting rights under a 1728 Act which disenfranchised them - this act did not apply to Presbyterians who had won limited concessions under the 1719 Toleration Act. Catholics could not sit in Parliament from an earlier period but did maintain some voting rights until 1728. Catholics regained the right to vote in 1793.

It was the right to sit in Parliament that O'Connell was up against not voting rights. He was elected - mostly by Catholic voters - and therefore demanded the right to take his seat. The Catholic Relief Act of 1829 allowed Catholics to sit in the Westminster Parliament - it was not about voting, this was already established, but about Catholic participation in Parliament.

Ironically, the 1829 Act was a typical "political concession" piece. Many Irish Catholics lost the right to vote under the act as the qualification for voting was changed in order to appease those who opposed Catholic political participation.

CDfm

Any chance of a timeline Marchdub - I tried to pick my way thru it but....

Also -1793 that meant it was an Irish Act that enfranchised catholics -were the rules the same in mainland Britain?

owenc

brianthebard wrote: »

Presbyterians were also excluded from voting under the Penal laws, emancipation of catholics also gave them the vote. I think women who inherited land were allowed vote but that was changed in the 1830s or 40s, I don't really know tbh.




I think we'll just let the conversation evolve by itself, if you want to talk about splinter groups there's no problem, the young Irelanders are comparable to the charterists or peterloo congregation in ways imo, they're all seeking to create a change in the status quo.

soo true everyone thinks its the catholics, years ago presbyterians weren't aloud to marry church of ireland or anything like that!!:eek:

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

Any chance of a timeline Marchdub - I tried to pick my way thru it but....

Also -1793 that meant it was an Irish Act that enfranchised catholics -were the rules the same in mainland Britain?

If you do a search under Catholic Relief Acts you will find most of what you are looking for I think.

The 1793 Act applied both to the British and Irish Parliaments. Actually it was pressure from Westminster that passed the Act in Ireland. After the "Old Pretender" [James III] died they were far less worried about a Stuart restoration and possible restoration of Catholic lands - one of the pivotal reasons for the exclusion of Catholics from the franchise - and then more worried about ideological influences from the American and French revolutions. So they wanted to bring Catholics in from the cold and not cause them to form an ideological force that would threaten the British status quo. The last remaining issue of Catholic participation in Parliament proved to be thorny though with many holding out against that.

When the Act of Union was passed in 1800 it was promised as part of the deal with Dublin - but then refused, and hence O'Connell's long drawn out battle to win the right for Catholics to sit in parliament.

CDfm

and women and the vote ?

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

and women and the vote ?

This is a bit murky because women were not actually formally excluded from voting until the Reform Act of 1832 when it was specifically stated that only males of eligible standing were entitled to vote. It has been assumed that prior to that some women - and we are only talking about the wealthy classes here - may have voted when for example, they were widowed and they took on their husband's ballot. It was when the franchise was being broadened to include slightly lower classes that formal action was taken - in 1832 - to ensure that women would be entirely excluded from this new broader franchise.

Women over the age of 30 were granted the vote in 1918 in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland with certain property stipulations. Full equally with men - who could vote at age 21 - was granted to women in Ireland by the Dail in 1921 and in Britain in 1928.

CDfm

Thanks MarchDub

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

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.

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.

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

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].

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?

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?

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?

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.

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

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.