How did Dublin Corporation become Catholic/Nationalist Controlled?

Blisterman

I'm writing my dissertation on the development of monuments in Dublin from 1800. And it seems that there was a massive change from the 1860's onwards, with dozens of new statues being erected, including for the first time, some of Irish Nationalists, Like the O Connell Monument.

I know that in 1841, Daniel O Connell became the first Catholic Lord Mayor of Dublin. But other than that, all I can find are references to the Corporation being protestant and unionist in the early part of the century, and references to it being Fiercely Catholic and Nationalist in the latter part of the century.

Does anyone know how this change happened? Or where I could find information on this.

Victor

Catholic Emancipation and the gradual removal of voting restrictions mean that the electorate shifted from being a well off, largely Protestant and unionist one, to a poorer, largely Catholic and nationalist one.

Separately, suburbanisation that came about with the railways and tramways led to the moving of the middle and upper classes to the surrounding townships (especially Pembroke and Rathmines) and the city corporation area become dominated by the poor (largely Catholic and nationalist). This devastated the corporation's tax base which was reliant on rates.

owenc

Well as other people have said catholic emancipation helped it happen. Because nearly everyone in southern ireland was catholic it was easy for the catholic workforce in the political sector to take over the protestant workforce. I must also say all to be a nationalist you don't need to be a catholic etc , saying that nationalists are catholic or unionists are protestants does my head in.

owenc

Victor wrote: »

Catholic Emancipation and the gradual removal of voting restrictions mean that the electorate shifted from being a well off, largely Protestant and unionist one, to a poorer, largely Catholic and nationalist one.

Separately, suburbanisation that came about with the railways and tramways led to the moving of the middle and upper classes to the surrounding townships (especially Pembroke and Rathmines) and the city corporation area become dominated by the poor (largely Catholic and nationalist). This devastated the corporation's tax base which was reliant on rates.

In Southern Ireland the rich class only occured this never occured in Northen Ireland as there were very few church of ireland people about most were presbyterians it is the same now, so then i wouldn't say it affected us as much as most as i just said were presbyterian who were treated the same way as catholics as far as the church of ireland were concerned who got all our money for absolutely no reason at all, Presbyterians were also banned from voting for a certain period of years aswell as catholics.

Wolfe Tone

Catholics being allowed to vote would be the major thing I would imagine.


OT: Welcome back owen, hopefully you have learnt a lesson and wont be up to your usual tricks.

owenc

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Catholics being allowed to vote would be the major thing I would imagine.


OT: Welcome back owen, hopefully you have learnt a lesson and wont be up to your usual tricks.

Thank you for your welcome.:)

Victor

owenc wrote: »

I must also say all to be a nationalist you don't need to be a catholic etc , saying that nationalists are catholic or unionists are protestants does my head in.

There was a much stronger pattern in the 19th century than in either the 17th-18th or late 20th centuries as lack of political power aligned those things. Presbyterians gained voting/political rights well before Catholics and that moved them more into the unionist camp. Also, Presbyterians were more common in Ulster than Dublin, so they had little effect on the corporation.

Of note, in the WWI era, the only two boroughs with a unionist majority were Belfast and Rathmines.

owenc

Victor wrote: »

There was a much stronger pattern in the 19th century than in either the 17th-18th or late 20th centuries as lack of political power aligned those things. Presbyterians gained voting/political rights well before Catholics and that moved them more into the unionist camp. Also, Presbyterians were more common in Ulster than Dublin, so they had little effect on the corporation.

Of note, in the WWI era, the only two boroughs with a unionist majority were Belfast and Rathmines.

Yes but they were still effected. Are you sure about that last fact weren't north antrim and north londonderry not unionist?? As high as 90% at some points.

Blisterman

How were Dublin Corporation members chosen? Were they always elected by the public?

PatsytheNazi

owenc wrote: »

Yes but they were still effected. Are you sure about that last fact weren't north antrim and north Derry not unionist?? As high as 90% at some points.

Trinity college in Dublin was a rotten borough. Always returned unionists unsurprisingly including the 1918 election.

Victor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Government_(Ireland)_Act_1898

owenc wrote: »

Yes but they were still effected. Are you sure about that last fact weren't north antrim and north londonderry not unionist?? As high as 90% at some points.

Were they actually boroughs or county councils / grand juries?

Blisterman wrote: »

How were Dublin Corporation members chosen? Were they always elected by the public?

As far as I know. However, certain restrictions, that we would consider oppressive existed, e.g. you had to be male and have a certain amount of wealth. I'm not sure of religion as such was a bar for voting for / being on the corporation as it was with the oaths in parliament, but as above wealth would have tilted things in a certain direction. As usual in these things, those witht he most power were teh most likely to be elected. There was of course the usual age (21?), citizenship and residency restrictions and they were tighter than they are now.

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Trinity college in Dublin was a rotten borough. Always returned unionists unsurprisingly including the 1918 election.

While a "rotten borough" if wasn't actually a borough. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotten_and_pocket_boroughs

Actually, reading this, the number of borough seems to have varied widely over time.

http://www.progenealogists.com/ireland/freeholders.htm

At least 200 boroughs were created from the 1100s through the 1600s in Ireland. Borough and city corporations were created by charters held of the Crown. The charters of many of these boroughs were later revoked.

In 1829, the boroughs in Ireland were: Athlone, Carrickfergus, Clonmel, Coleraine, Downpatrick, Drogheda, Dundalk, Dungannon, Dungarvon, Ennis, Galway, Lisburn, Mallow, Newry, Ross, Sligo, Tralee, Wexford, and Youghal. In 1829, there were eight cities in Ireland: Armagh, Cashel, Cork, Dublin, Kilkenny, Limerick, Londonderry, and Waterford.

owenc

Victor wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Government_(Ireland)_Act_1898

Were they actually boroughs or county councils / grand juries?
As far as I know. However, certain restrictions, that we would consider oppressive existed, e.g. you had to be male and have a certain amount of wealth. I'm not sure of religion as such was a bar for voting for / being on the corporation as it was with the oaths in parliament, but as above wealth would have tilted things in a certain direction. As usual in these things, those witht he most power were teh most likely to be elected. There was of course the usual age (21?), citizenship and residency restrictions and they were tighter than they are now.

While a "rotten borough" if wasn't actually a borough. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotten_and_pocket_boroughs

Actually, reading this, the number of borough seems to have varied widely over time.

http://www.progenealogists.com/ireland/freeholders.htm

Hmm i was relating to the 1890s not back then suppose that was after catholic emancipation.... the one i was talkin about is a constituency like now we have east londonderry and north antrim. There must've been more boroughs than they listed because coleraine is on its own there are no ballymoney or limavady boroughs were other towns added to boroughs that were controlled by large towns???????? Its stayed the same now except we have constituencys we still have boroughs here i am aware yous have counties wouldn't like that here because of the way things work in my county wouldn't work out well, i prefer the plan they suggested which added us with limavady, ballymoney and moyle far better if you ask me. Also back to that are you sure they used boroughs, i thought you used constituencys like now as boroughs we be a pain in the head.

CDfm

I think it is easy to become overly hung up on the dynamics of Catholic vs Protestant in Dublin was the only dynamic.

Only 1 third of men had the vote in parlimentary elections - so you need to see what was the composition of the electorate.

If my memory serves me correctly -women in the 19th century lost the right to vote in local elections somewhere along the way.

Up until 1848 and the United Irishmen - many nationalist leaders were protestant and catholic emanicipation was also arguably presbyterian emancipation. Jewish emancipation too - so who qualified as voters and where could they get representation from.

Class also had something to do with it - post famine you had an emerging middle class who had political aspirations.

Another issue will be the growth of the labour movement. The suffragettes under Anna Haslam and polite leadership achieved little and working class pressure groups tended to be more aggressive

So the composition of the electorate and emergence of a middle class , trades people etc will all have been a factor. Membership of the Home Rule movement and the Labour movent was compatable and there was a crossover.

I would not underestimate the emergence of an organised labour movement at all. So the demographics will be very important and I would also imagine that the occupations and social mobility of councillors will also be an important factor.

Local elections and representation was also very important - MPs were not paid until the early 20th century and Parnell often funded the Parlimentary Party members trips to London. So opportunity and affodability to serve on the corporation is also important.

edit - we discussed the franchise here

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055905013&highlight=CDfm

the local government act in the 1890's was very important

look at the lord mayor lists

http://www.citizendia.org/Lord_Mayor_of_Dublin#Notable_early_mayors

Victor

CDfm wrote: »

Up until 1848 and the United Irishmen - many nationalist leaders were protestant and catholic emanicipation was also arguably presbyterian emancipation.

Weren't changes made that were acceptable to Presbyterians well before 1829?

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

Up until 1848 and the United Irishmen - many nationalist leaders were protestant and catholic emanicipation was also arguably presbyterian emancipation.

Victor wrote: »

Weren't changes made that were acceptable to Presbyterians well before 1829?

Yes Victor you are absolutely correct I don't know why this historic confusion keeps getting repeated on boards but Catholic Emancipation had absolutely nothing to do with the Presbyterians. There was a thread about six months ago -

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65850036&postcount=26

Catholics were denied voting rights under a 1728 Act which disenfranchised them - this act did not apply to Presbyterians who had actually won concessions under the 1719 Toleration Act. Catholics could not sit in Parliament from an earlier period but did maintain some voting rights until 1728 when they were then denied the vote. This disenfranchising Act did not apply to Presbyterians - and neither did the earlier Act to Prevent the Further Growth of Popery of 1704 which sought to essentially eliminate Catholics from all political and economic life of the country.

The Catholic Relief Act of 1829 [note what it was specifically called] allowed Catholics to sit in the Westminster Parliament - it was not about voting or about Presbyterians - Catholics had regained the right to vote in 1793 - it was about Catholic participation in Parliament.

CDfm

Thanks Marchdub.

As always -you are bang on.

Presbyterians in Ireland were not part of the Church Of Ireland and the established church. They did have concessions and I sort of thought they were somewhere in the middle.

It is hugely interesting and I would be interested in what Blisterman finds.

owenc

MarchDub wrote: »

Yes Victor you are absolutely correct I don't know why this historic confusion keeps getting repeated on boards but Catholic Emancipation had absolutely nothing to do with the Presbyterians. There was a thread about six months ago -

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65850036&postcount=26

Catholics were denied voting rights under a 1728 Act which disenfranchised them - this act did not apply to Presbyterians who had actually won concessions under the 1719 Toleration Act. Catholics could not sit in Parliament from an earlier period but did maintain some voting rights until 1728 when they were then denied the vote. This disenfranchising Act did not apply to Presbyterians - and neither did the earlier Act to Prevent the Further Growth of Popery of 1704 which sought to essentially eliminate Catholics from all political and economic life of the country.

The Catholic Relief Act of 1829 [note what it was specifically called] allowed Catholics to sit in the Westminster Parliament - it was not about voting or about Presbyterians - Catholics had regained the right to vote in 1793 - it was about Catholic participation in Parliament.

Are you sure presbyterians weren't aloud to vote until the 1800s asfar as i know it even says in the penal laws

CDfm

owenc wrote: »

Are you sure presbyterians weren't aloud to vote until the 1800s asfar as i know it even says in the penal laws

We are not talking about a modern democracy.

The voting systems in any event were property ownership based and in Scotland even before the laws only something like 3 % of the population had the vote in parlimentary elections .- class being an important factor.

Ireland was roughly the same and pre 1800 its electorate would have been very small.

Local elections had a wider electorate, so were a bit more significant.

owenc

CDfm wrote: »

We are not talking about a modern democracy.

The voting systems in any event were property ownership based and in Scotland even before the laws only something like 3 % of the population had the vote in parlimentary elections .- class being an important factor.

Ireland was roughly the same and pre 1800 its electorate would have been very small.

Local elections had a wider electorate, so were a bit more significant.

Its alright now anyways because i have realised that presbyterians were persecuted in the 1700s and not the 1800s

HavingCrack

OP, are you just referring to the 19th century or are you including the early 20th century also?