40 shilling freeholders

Denerick

Since 1793 Catholics who owned leases of a minimum of 40 shillings were allowed to vote in their local constituencies. In the 1820s O'Connells Catholic committee utilised this groundswell of power, when the 40 shilling freeholders voted to oust establishment Protestants across the country in order to replace them with liberal Protestants in favour of Catholic Emancipation. This paved the way for O'Connell himself to run in Clare in 1828, thus bringing about the passing of emancipation.

However I think that one of the 'securities' associated with the 1829 settlement was the repeal of this blocs voting rights. I'm trying to find out what happened them afterwards, and whether any of their rights were restored following the Great Reform Act of 1832. They were a remarkable class who displayed extreme bravery by defying their landlords, but they seem to have completely gone off the radar after 1829. Any help or anecdotes greatly appreciated...

MarchDub

Denerick wrote: »

Since 1793 Catholics who owned leases of a minimum of 40 shillings were allowed to vote in their local constituencies. In the 1820s O'Connells Catholic committee utilised this groundswell of power, when the 40 shilling freeholders voted to oust establishment Protestants across the country in order to replace them with liberal Protestants in favour of Catholic Emancipation. This paved the way for O'Connell himself to run in Clare in 1828, thus bringing about the passing of emancipation.

However I think that one of the 'securities' associated with the 1829 settlement was the repeal of this blocs voting rights. I'm trying to find out what happened them afterwards, and whether any of their rights were restored following the Great Reform Act of 1832. They were a remarkable class who displayed extreme bravery by defying their landlords, but they seem to have completely gone off the radar after 1829. Any help or anecdotes greatly appreciated...

The right to vote for the Catholic 40 shilling freeholders allowed O'Connell's party to encourage Catholic votes to vote for pro-emancipation Protestant candidates - but it didn't really pave the way, what did happen was frustration at how little these candidates were able to achieve so O'Connell decided to run himself, in violation of the law against Catholic candidates sitting in Parliament. He won.

And I agree completely with you, they are brave souls who voted - in a time prior to the secret ballot - against their landlords 'advice'. While parliament had no problem allowing pro-emancipation candidates to sit and be ignored or whatever, O'Connell's election pushed the issue of actually allowing him to take his seat. Fear of discontent or civil war in Ireland finally won out and the 1829 Emancipation Act was passed - but at a price. The Act also cut the franchise.


The 40 shilling freeholder lost the right to vote in 1829 and actually this right was not restored by the Reform Act of 1832. The wealth qualification for voting was still held at £10. Many were disappointed in this part of the 'reform' which of course was the inevitable compromise - but it did greatly improve the rotten borough mess and extended the franchise by other means.

The voting qualification never returned to the 'forty shilling' method as a gauge so it's hard to say when exactly each of those disenfranchised guys got back the vote. Other stuff got introduced like copyholders of estates were enfranchised and a separate criteria for vote qualification for 'leaseholders', lifelong leaseholders or those so many years etc.

Denerick

MarchDub wrote: »

The right to vote for the Catholic 40 shilling freeholders allowed O'Connell's party to encourage Catholic votes to vote for pro-emancipation Protestant candidates - but it didn't really pave the way, what did happen was frustration at how little these candidates were able to achieve so O'Connell decided to run himself, in violation of the law against Catholic candidates sitting in Parliament. He won.

I'm not so sure about this. Catholic voters had massive success in some areas, e.g the Beresford's in Waterford. I'm a littly hazy on this so I might be wrong but the 40 shilling freeholder did succeed in several areas in 1826 (I think) in voting in liberal protestants. Not enough to tip the balance in the Commons by any means, but certainly significant, and definately enough to create momentum and agitation... O'Connell ran against a Liberal Protestant (Vesey Fitzgerald) in Clare when he eventually won.

MarchDub

Denerick wrote: »

I'm not so sure about this. Catholic voters had massive success in some areas, e.g the Beresford's in Waterford. I'm a littly hazy on this so I might be wrong but the 40 shilling freeholder did succeed in several areas in 1826 (I think) in voting in liberal protestants. Not enough to tip the balance in the Commons by any means, but certainly significant, and definately enough to create momentum and agitation... O'Connell ran against a Liberal Protestant (Vesey Fitzgerald) in Clare when he eventually won.

Aren't we saying the same thing essentially? Maybe you are misunderstanding what I am saying or I have been unclear?

Yes, of course the Catholic voters had huge success in the 1826 election - they voted in a number of pro-Emancipation candidates. And liberal Protestant voters contributed to the success. All I am saying is that there was disappointment in Ireland when the Conservatives in the Westminster Parliament did not respond in any meaningful way. So O'Connell decided that a more direct confrontation was necessary.

I guess I just didn't see this as 'paving the way' - more of a lesson to be learned. But not a huge difference in what we are saying?

Denerick

No, sorry, didn't take you up the right way there earlier.

CDfm

I am interested in the whole area of votes and franchise.

This being that I don't know how the voting was actually exercised and how the votes were allocated , used and bought and sold.

Is this anecdotal or is there evidence to back it up.

Were there areas where Landlords fielded candidates and effectively dictated the winner and is this documented. How was it enforced.

Were there regional differences, for example, Wellington and his brother had no problem with Catholics voting. It would have been hard for them to after the Napleonic Wars to have such views.

Were there areas too where you had protestant landlords leasing to catholic relatives so did you have a type of franchise.

I should know this as it was taught in school but this bit was left out. I have a feeling it is not clear cut.

Denerick

CDfm wrote: »

I am interested in the whole area of votes and franchise.

This being that I don't know how the voting was actually exercised and how the votes were allocated , used and bought and sold.

Is this anecdotal or is there evidence to back it up.

Were there areas where Landlords fielded candidates and effectively dictated the winner and is this documented. How was it enforced.

It was common for there to be single candidate constituencies. Whole families effectively owned parliamentary seats (The rotten borough system) and it was an important source of income for some landlord's. In the Irish Parliament Irish magnates were compensated for the loss of their seats with the Act of Union by a one off payment/bribe from London.

Were there regional differences, for example, Wellington and his brother had no problem with Catholics voting. It would have been hard for them to after the Napleonic Wars to have such views.

Wellington was an ultra Tory and the last thing he wanted was Catholic emancipation. Along with Peel, O'Connells victory in Clare in 1828 kind of forced his hand in the end. The Catholic question had been a major issue in British politics since at least 1793. Peel was not stupid, he knew some sort of settlement had to be made.

Were there areas too where you had protestant landlords leasing to catholic relatives so did you have a type of franchise.

I should know this as it was taught in school but this bit was left out. I have a feeling it is not clear cut.

Catholics earned the right to vote in 1793 but would not have the right to sit in Parliament until 1829.