'Monster meetings' -1843 & the repeal movement

jonniebgood1

From the numbers quoted in attendance at the series of meetings in support of Daniel O'Connell and the repeal movement it seems to have been one of the most widely supported movements in Irish history. The cancellation of a meeting by O'Connell signalled the end of this in the face of pressure from the British Prime minister who had sent military to stop the meeting. Is there an accurate way to guage how much support the repeal association had and how many people attended their meetings. Estimates for one of the meetings at Tara claim 800,000 attendees in support. This number is hard to believe in comparison to gatherings today. In 'the Great Famine' by Ciaran O Murchadha the author describes in great detail a similar meeting that took place in Ennis with a carnival type procession through the town to an eventual meeting point with podium where guests spoke building up to the appearance of the 'liberator'. In a time before modern transport these meetings and shows of support were a massive achievement (compare this with current referendums 53% voter turnout!).

There are a number of points and questions that arise from this
-Troops and 2 warships were brought in to suppress the movement by the British, did these see any action or remain in army stations?

-Why did the movement fade away so quickly (the famine did not become widespread until 1845).

-Are the numbers quoted accurate?

-Should they have been successful could they have dealt better with the famine than the British did- O'Connell was I would say part of a socially conservative group?

Vanolder

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

From the numbers quoted in attendance at the series of meetings in support of Daniel O'Connell and the repeal movement it seems to have been one of the most widely supported movements in Irish history. The cancellation of a meeting by O'Connell signalled the end of this in the face of pressure from the British Prime minister who had sent military to stop the meeting. Is there an accurate way to guage how much support the repeal association had and how many people attended their meetings. Estimates for one of the meetings at Tara claim 800,000 attendees in support. This number is hard to believe in comparison to gatherings today. In 'the Great Famine' by Ciaran O Murchadha the author describes in great detail a similar meeting that took place in Ennis with a carnival type procession through the town to an eventual meeting point with podium where guests spoke building up to the appearance of the 'liberator'. In a time before modern transport these meetings and shows of support were a massive achievement (compare this with current referendums 53% voter turnout!).

There are a number of points and questions that arise from this
-Troops and 2 warships were brought in to suppress the movement by the British, did these see any action or remain in army stations?

-Why did the movement fade away so quickly (the famine did not become widespread until 1845).

-Are the numbers quoted accurate?

-Should they have been successful could they have dealt better with the famine than the British did- O'Connell was I would say part of a socially conservative group?

The numbers were more often than not overestimated, and reports were often second hand. However, numbers were large and a major step up from anything that went before it (Tithe war)

One reason turn outs were so large was down to the influence of the church over the masses , who Dan cleverly used to implement his plan. These meetings, and marches by the priest and his flock to the gathering, were also tied up with the temperance movement at the time. Priests also acted as enforcers and tore down any political banners they deemed offensive to the movement.

You can also put the numbers down to the class element. This was a movement driven by the middleclass/large farmer who made it a 'national' cause and a peaceful one at that. Though the tithe war had a middleclass element it was nothing to the vast amount involved here and thus was not perceived as a threat (violence) and received positive press and exaggeration

Jolly Red Giant

O'Connell's strategy - March them up to the top of the hill and march them down again - and if they dare raise an independent voice swat them down like flies.

cormacocomhrai

There's a story told about O'Connell addressing a mass meeting in Clifden, speaking in English and nobody understand him. Then a hundred years later De Valera addressed a mass meeting in Clifden, spoke in Irish and nobody.......

While the story could not be true it does show the speed of the language shift

jonniebgood1

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

O'Connell's strategy - March them up to the top of the hill and march them down again - and if they dare raise an independent voice swat them down like flies.

Ah JRG, He was of the period. Was there a comparative figure in the first half of the 19th century that represented the ordinary people? He was fighting bigger issues.

jonniebgood1

Vanolder wrote: »

The numbers were more often than not overestimated, and reports were often second hand. However, numbers were large and a major step up from anything that went before it (Tithe war)

The book quoted in first post in relation to the Ennis meeting gives estimates by opponents of repeal of between 150,000 and 200,000 at the meeting in that town. 200,000 people in Ennis is a large achievement. The pro repealers estimated 500,000 in Ennis so the truth was possibly in between these 2 figures.

thecommietommy

Vanolder wrote: »

The numbers were more often than not overestimated, and reports were often second hand. However, numbers were large and a major step up from anything that went before it (Tithe war)

One reason turn outs were so large was down to the influence of the church over the masses , who Dan cleverly used to implement his plan. These meetings, and marches by the priest and his flock to the gathering, were also tied up with the temperance movement at the time. Priests also acted as enforcers and tore down any political banners they deemed offensive to the movement.

You can also put the numbers down to the class element. This was a movement driven by the middleclass/large farmer who made it a 'national' cause and a peaceful one at that. Though the tithe war had a middleclass element it was nothing to the vast amount involved here and thus was not perceived as a threat (violence) and received positive press and exaggeration

Great post Vanolder, if you have any more information on O'Connell and the Repeal movement I for one would appreciate it. " the influence of the church over the masses...... Priests also acted as enforcers and tore down any political banners they deemed offensive to the movement " - quite a different perspective that I and countless thousands of others of my generation and before were indocturinated with by those violent saddistic [EMAIL="b@stards"]b@stards[/EMAIL] the De La Salle brothers :rolleyes: :mad:

mikemac1

O'Connell was a trained barrister and would have known about speaking well.
But even then only a fraction would even hear the speech

So would there be stewards recording it and passing it on?

If I'm 1km from the speech how am I going to find out what was said?
Maybe I'll be told in the church sermon next week or after mass by a local delegate?


You often read about heroic speeches given by legendary generals but I'd wonder how many were even there to hear it

cormacocomhrai

mikemac1 wrote: »

O'Connell was a trained barrister and would have known about speaking well.
But even then only a fraction would even hear the speech

So would there be stewards recording it and passing it on?

If I'm 1km from the speech how am I going to find out what was said?
Maybe I'll be told in the church sermon next week or after mass by a local delegate?


You often read about heroic speeches given by legendary generals but I'd wonder how many were even there to hear it

I always wondered how anybody at all heard it. The amount of noise a thousand people make, even being quiet, not to mind a hundred times that figure. From my understanding of it O'Connell's primary concern weren't the people who were there to listen to him, it was the journalists who were there to report on what he said. Good question though.

Jolly Red Giant

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Ah JRG, He was of the period. Was there a comparative figure in the first half of the 19th century that represented the ordinary people? He was fighting bigger issues.

And was quite willing to shaft the ordinary people in the process - by the late 1830s the trade unions were begining to stand up to him and telling him to get stuffed.

jonniebgood1

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

And was quite willing to shaft the ordinary people in the process - by the late 1830s the trade unions were begining to stand up to him and telling him to get stuffed.

He did'nt support bills in parliament that the unions of the time wanted. So who told who to get stuffed. The issue in the country at the time was less to do with factory workers and more agrarian in nature. These people were not represented by the unions, the meetings of 1843 suggest that they saw O'Connell as their representative.

dubhthach

cormacocomhrai wrote: »

There's a story told about O'Connell addressing a mass meeting in Clifden, speaking in English and nobody understand him. Then a hundred years later De Valera addressed a mass meeting in Clifden, spoke in Irish and nobody.......

While the story could not be true it does show the speed of the language shift

It wouldn't surprise me. O'Connell along with most of his class (catholic middle/merchant/clerical classes) were the prime drivers of angliscation during the 19th century.

"I am sufficiently utilitarian not to regret its gradual abandonment. A diversity of languages is no benefit; it was first imposed on mankind as a curse, at the building of Babel. It would be of vast advantage to mankind if all the inhabitants spoke the same language. Therefore, although the Irish language is connected with many recollections that twine around the hearts of Irishmen, yet the superior utility of the English tongue, as the medium of modern communication, is so great, that I can witness without sigh the gradual disuse of the Irish."

- Daniel O'Connell, 1833

"An Irish prayer-book is a thing which the poor [Catholic] Irish peasant has never seen. Not only has he not been taught the language which he speaks, but his clergy have never encouraged, and have sometimes forbidden him to learn it. This objection arose chiefly, I believe, from the impudent intermeddling of Bible Societies with the religion of the people. By their patronage of the Irish language, they had desecrated it in the eyes of the Irish themselves."

"I have seen an Irish bishop, with mitre on head and crozier in hand, delivering an elaborate English discourse to an Irish congregation, while a priest stood in the pulpit interpreting it sentence by sentence. This prelate was the son of an Irish peasant, born and reared in one of the most Irish districts in Ireland. Many of his audience might have been, and probably were his playmates in childhood and boyhood, and must have heard him speak the language of his father and mother; but he had never learned it, and was now too distinguished a dignitary of the church, to remember anything of the language of the vulgar herd he had left below him."

- Conor McSweeny, 'Songs of the Irish', 1843

"The middle classes think it a sign of vulgarity to speak Irish.

- Thomas Davis, Young Ireland, 1845

cormacocomhrai

I've no doubt but that story of O'Connell speaking in English is true. The flaw in the story is that there would have been English speakers around Clifden even as early as that. The vast, vast majority would have been monoglot Irish speakers all the same.

Same with Dev. Dev might well have spoken in Irish a hundred years later but a large number of his audience would have understand Irish or been native speakers.

I must research the story a bit more and see if O'Connell spoke out there.

O'Connell certainly spoke at Sliding Rock in Shantalla in Galway city. At the time it was well out in the countryside. (Even a hundred years later it was considered the sticks). Sliding rock is reputed to be the site of a mass rock from penal times.

To return to the issue of the language shift I wonder did O'Connell damage the language in the eyes of the peasantry or did he merely behave in the manner in which they would have expected someone of his class behave and was his own linguistic behaviour irrelevent? Leinster was lost to English at that stage (apart from pockets in Louth and Kilkenny) and areas of Munster and East and North Connacht were also gone.
That's not to say that he wouldn't have boosted the language had he given public support to it.

pedroeibar1

..... interpreting it sentence by sentence. This prelate was the son of an Irish peasant, born and reared in one of the most Irish districts in Ireland. ..........
- Conor McSweeny, 'Songs of the Irish', 1843

I wonder about the veracity of that statement . At a time when rural communities had little wealth, any cash usually was reserved for rent payment and then some basic necessities. Most survived principally on barter, only the wealthy “strong farmers” or merchants could afford the cash costs involved in educating one of their sons in the priesthood. (Hence the middleclass outlook of the clergy.) The popular tradition – exemplified by an t-Athair Peadar O’Laoghaire in Mo Sceal Fein - of poverty-stricken peasant farmers struggling from dawn to dusk trying to earn the fees to keep their son in Maynooth may have been true in a very occasional case – for them it would be a heroic struggle to earn the annual fees of £25 for tuition and a similar amount for board & lodging over a sustained period of about 7 years. Although Maynooth College as the national seminary was endowed by the State, all students had to pay their own expenses and it was not until post-1845 that grants became available, so Catholic priests of the pre-Famine era inevitably came from comfortable landowning backgrounds.

slowburner

mikemac1 wrote: »

O'Connell was a trained barrister and would have known about speaking well.
But even then only a fraction would even hear the speech

So would there be stewards recording it and passing it on?

If I'm 1km from the speech how am I going to find out what was said?
Maybe I'll be told in the church sermon next week or after mass by a local delegate?


You often read about heroic speeches given by legendary generals but I'd wonder how many were even there to hear it

cormacocomhrai wrote: »

I always wondered how anybody at all heard it. The amount of noise a thousand people make, even being quiet, not to mind a hundred times that figure. From my understanding of it O'Connell's primary concern weren't the people who were there to listen to him, it was the journalists who were there to report on what he said. Good question though.

O'Connell's rock in Glencullen, Co. Dublin, marks the site of a mass meeting in 1823 - it's a natural amphitheatre.
Presumably acoustics were amongst the reasons for choosing a particular venue.

That would be an interesting piece of experimental work - to see what the acoustics are like in the natural amphitheatre.



http://dublinbusstuff.com/PhotoWeek/Route44B.html

cormacocomhrai

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

I wonder about the veracity of that statement . At a time when rural communities had little wealth, any cash usually was reserved for rent payment and then some basic necessities. Most survived principally on barter, only the wealthy “strong farmers” or merchants could afford the cash costs involved in educating one of their sons in the priesthood. (Hence the middleclass outlook of the clergy.) The popular tradition – exemplified by an t-Athair Peadar O’Laoghaire in Mo Sceal Fein - of poverty-stricken peasant farmers struggling from dawn to dusk trying to earn the fees to keep their son in Maynooth may have been true in a very occasional case – for them it would be a heroic struggle to earn the annual fees of £25 for tuition and a similar amount for board & lodging over a sustained period of about 7 years. Although Maynooth College as the national seminary was endowed by the State, all students had to pay their own expenses and it was not until post-1845 that grants became available, so Catholic priests of the pre-Famine era inevitably came from comfortable landowning backgrounds.

Maybe peasant sounded better than strong farmer? Perhaps it was a slightly different meaning of the word itself. Again regardless of whether or not he was a peasant there must have been plenty of people in Maynooth hiding how much Irish they knew.

jonniebgood1

Vanolder wrote: »

One reason turn outs were so large was down to the influence of the church over the masses , who Dan cleverly used to implement his plan. These meetings, and marches by the priest and his flock to the gathering, were also tied up with the temperance movement at the time. Priests also acted as enforcers and tore down any political banners they deemed offensive to the movement.

This was part of O'Connells intention that the protest be recognised as civilised to put pressure on the British parliament. The meetings were reported widely in the media around the world.

The Liberator concluded by calling upon the men of Kildare to rally round him, as those of the north, west, and south of Ire land had done, and no government could refuse to grant tl.em a restoration of their native parliament. The temperance bands of the Kildare teetotal societies were in attendance, and performed a variety of popular airs with much precision and good taste.

taken from the Sydney Morning Chronicle newspaper of 21/11/43 reporting on Repeal meeting at the Curragh.

jonniebgood1

Repeal Movement Association Card
http://www.clarelibrary.ie/eolas/claremuseum/acquisitions/loyal_nat_repeal_assoc_card_large.htm

Vanolder

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Vanolder wrote: »

One reason turn outs were so large was down to the influence of the church over the masses , who Dan cleverly used to implement his plan. These meetings, and marches by the priest and his flock to the gathering, were also tied up with the temperance movement at the time. Priests also acted as enforcers and tore down any political banners they deemed offensive to the movement.

This was part of O'Connells intention that the protest be recognised as civilised to put pressure on the British parliament. The meetings were reported widely in the media around the world.

The Liberator concluded by calling upon the men of Kildare to rally round him, as those of the north, west, and south of Ire land had done, and no government could refuse to grant tl.em a restoration of their native parliament. The temperance bands of the Kildare teetotal societies were in attendance, and performed a variety of popular airs with much precision and good taste.

taken from the Sydney Morning Chronicle newspaper of 21/11/43 reporting on Repeal meeting at the Curragh.

The Church were used for far more then just appearance and making the movement seem civilized. It was they who extracted the money from the poor to fill O'Connell's 'war chest'.

British economists at the time, while debating what would be best for Ireland and controlling the peasantry, came to the wonderful conclusion that Priests would be cheaper to use than troops. Dan certainly saw the value in this also.

The explosion of agrarian outrage in around 1845-46 was very much a realization on the peasantry's part that they had been used by O'Connell and his land grabbing supporters. Of course the famine conveniently resolved much of this.

pedroeibar1

cormacocomhrai wrote: »

Maybe peasant sounded better than strong farmer? Perhaps it was a slightly different meaning of the word itself. Again regardless of whether or not he was a peasant there must have been plenty of people in Maynooth hiding how much Irish they knew.

You probably hit the nail as ‘peasant’ suits the ’Nationalism’ cause more than ‘strong farmer’. Perhaps some young clerics hid their cupla focail faoi ‘n leaba in Maynooth, but I doubt that they did so. The Fr. O’Flynn of the A.P. Graves ballad (real name Fr. Michael Walsh c1793-1866) was PP in Sneem, Co. Kerry during the mid 1800s - he was the son of a strong farmer in Co. Cork, occasionally preached as Gaeilge and used to interpret at the local Petty Sessions. (The landlords favoured this because the witnesses & defendants were more likely to tell the truth to the PP rather than be influenced by any oath.:D)

My issue with the quote (from Conor McSweeny, 'Songs of the Irish', 1843) is with his use of ‘peasant’. The fees at the scholastic colleges were huge compared to the incomes of the early 1800’s – 30 guineas p.a. was normal, plus annual expenses, which were a minimum of £14 p.a. at a time when for e.g. the average value of livestock on holdings of 16 – 30 acres in the rich land of Tipperary was only £46 in 1841. Clearly no ‘peasant’ could afford any of the clerical colleges for a son.
Prior to 1845 the grant to the College in Maynooth was roughly £9k, that year it was increased to more than £26k, so bursaries became more common. But that post-dates O’Connell. (Figures quoted in Priest, Politics & Society in post famine Ireland – James O’Shea). FWIW, the first Roman Catholic priest in my family was born in 1820, son of a ‘strong farmer’ and although there is record that he spoke French, there is none that he had any Irish.


Don’t talk of your Provost and Fellows of Trinity,
Famous foriver at Greek and Latinity,
Dad and the divils and all at Divinity,
Father O’Flynn'd make hares of them all.
Come, I vinture to give you my word,
Never the likes of his logic was heard,
Down from Mythology
Into Thayology,
Troth! And Conchology if he’d the call.

cormacocomhrai

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

You probably hit the nail as ‘peasant’ suits the ’Nationalism’ cause more than ‘strong farmer’. Perhaps some young clerics hid their cupla focail faoi ‘n leaba in Maynooth, but I doubt that they did so.

It's extremely likely that some clerics hid their knowledge of the language or at least the fact that they were native speakers. Off the top of my head Máirtín Ó Cadhain (I think he) mentioned it a lecture he gave in the 1960s and he was referring to it the first half of the nineteenth century. I'll dig it out and quote it if I can find the book.
Firstly the language itself was increasingly becoming a badge of poverty. Individual clerics being willing to use it doesn't mean that there wasn't hostility or indifference towards the language and its speakers. The hierarchy of the Church reflected the attitudes of Middle and upper-middle class Catholics. I'd imagine that being a native Irish speaker in Maynooth in the nineteenth century would have been similar to having a very pronounced working class accent in a private school. For some it's important to hold on to their identity for others it's about adopting the speaking habits of the group.

Secondly I'd imagine that the efforts of groups like the Irish Church Missions to use the language to convert Catholics would have further alienated the Church from the language. Anectotally I've been told that folklore has retained stories about people hiding their literacy in the language from priests for fear of being implicated in efforts to convert.

Thirdly even until recent generations (after the propagandising work of the Free State and Conradh na Gaeilge etc.) you still had Connemara people trying to show how good their English was and trying to avoid being picked out as Connemara people when they came into Galway city.

I'm just thinking out loud with the suggestions about the hiding of the language by some priests. If they did it's disappeared into the mists of time now if they hid it successfully.There'd be no way of knowing and the nearest we could come to would be suggesting that they must have had some knowledge of Irish to grow up in most of the counties west of a Derry-Waterford line etc.
Interesting anecdote about the Priest and the witnesses by the way.

cormacocomhrai

Hi, I found the quote I wanted from that lecture that Ó Cadhain gave. It seems that in 1834 John O`Donovan of the Ordnance Survey was told by a priest in Co. Down that the priests were able to speak Irish but "ach ba ghaigíní suimiúil óg as Maigh Nuad iad ba ghalánta leo a cheilt go raibh an Ghaeilge acu." which translates roughly as "since they were young dandies from Maynooth they hid the fact that they had Irish because of respectability".

Ó Cadhain, M., Tone: Inné agus Inniu (Coiscéim 1999), p.22

jonniebgood1

The reasons for decline of the launguage are wide and could be a good thread topic on their own. With the possibility of emmigration particularly after the famine people would have recognised value in speaking English- it was an advantage in getting further in the world.

Irish even has its own term to describe itself as a peasant language, Teanga na mBocht (The Language of the Poor). http://insideireland.ie/2010/06/25/archive4219-4279/

nuac

Re Liberator's Monstger Meetings

Tradition is that O'Connell's speeches were relayed phrase by phrase throughout the crowd by selected speakers.

jonniebgood1

nuac wrote: »

Re Liberator's Monster Meetings

Tradition is that O'Connell's speeches were relayed phrase by phrase throughout the crowd by selected speakers.

Do you have further information on this?
I am interested in how these massive crowds were managed and how the meetings progressed.

nuac

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Do you have further information on this?
I am interested in how these massive crowds were managed and how the meetings progressed.

JBG O'Connell held such a meeting at Sheeaune outside Westport. I heard that such "relay speakers" were used. If I do come across any written reference I will post it up here

jonniebgood1

'Daniel O'Connell, the British Press, and the Irish Famine: Killing Remarks' By Leslie Williams, W. H. A. Williams suggests that the newspaper reports of the time were influential in convincing their readers as to the 'danger' of the repeal movement. Part of that can be seen in preview here http://books.google.ie/books?id=9FoLSc3pWJkC&pg=PA34&dq=repeal+movement+report&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FhvnT85zh86EB8LQ4eIJ&ved=0CDkQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q&f=false



"Beyond the boundaries of civilised politics"

This was reinforced in punch magazines influential satirical cartoons focusing on O'Connell.

Great numbers of the Irish were enrolled as members of the National Repeal Association by Mr. Daniel O'Connell, and large sums of money collected for the purposes of the Association. This subsidy was known as 'Rent'.

http://www.irishhistorian.com/Punch/Punch_DanielOConnell.html#King_Daniel_OConnor