Question 1
Evaluate the interpretations in both of the two passages and explain which you think is more convincing as an explanation of the impact of the Roman Catholic Emancipation Act in the period
from its passing in 1829 to 1841.
Passage A
Wellington and Peel believed that emancipation of Roman Catholics would maintain government authority. Instead, the Roman Catholic Emancipation Act destroyed the unity of the Tory party and damaged the Protestant Ascendancy’s domination of Irish society beyond repair. Irish Protestants regarded it as a sell-out, and the Act of Union no longer a fixed settlement but forever at the mercy of party politics and public opinion. It fed a revival of militant and Evangelical Protestantism, much of which was centred in Ulster, to wean the ordinary Irish folk from what the missions argued was a superstitious, oppressive and irrational Catholic Church. All these different movements gave an added sharpness to sectarian tensions during the 1830s and 1840s.
O’Connell had mobilised a popular Liberal-nationalist movement that had extracted far-reaching changes from a British government, something which the Liberal political movements of Europe failed to achieve throughout the 1830s and 1840s. In this he had shown Westminster where the Irish could do business, and between 1830 and 1841, he played the party game with skill and enjoyment. In alliance with the Whig governments (1830–41) and channelling the social discontent of Ireland behind his movement, he pursued and won further reforms. Cooperation with the Whig governments of the 1830s had been productive. By the late 1830s, with the imminent demise of the Whig ministry, O’Connell was compelled toward the larger goal of repealing the Union.
Adapted from: J. Smith, Britain and Ireland: From Home Rule to Independence, published in 1999.
Passage B
Wellington and Peel decided to concede Catholic emancipation. But they were not gracious losers. In exchange for emancipation O’Connell was forced to accept humiliating terms before taking his seat in Parliament. After O’Connell took his seat in the House of Commons he continued to agitate the Repeal question, but Tory and Whig administrations made full use of legislation to frustrate the growth of an effective Repeal organisation in Ireland. In fact, the Whig government that took office in 1830 demonstrated more diligence in limiting Irish agitation than the preceding Wellington-Peel administration.
After emancipation, the Irish masses had less political voice than before. Irish nationalists protested that reforms to the House of Commons were inadequate to express the weight of Irish opinion. O’Connell’s 1834 effort at repeal of the Union was a humiliation. However, O’Connell refused to cut his ties with the Whig party although he was disappointed with the results of 1832, and Lord Grey and other Whig leaders did little to disguise their lack of respect for their Irish ally. For five years the Whigs had the benefits of O’Connell’s support in Parliament without the inconveniences and political risks of an alliance with the Repeal leader.
Adapted from: L. McCaffrey, Daniel O’Connell and the Repeal Year, published in 1966.
[30]
Answer
