Repeal and revolution: 1848 in Ireland

By Christine Kinealy

Repeal and revolution. 1848 in Ireland examines the events that led up to the 1848 rising and examines the reasons for its failure. It places the rising in the context of political changes outside Ireland, especially the links between the Irish nationalists and radicals and republicans in Britain, France and north America. The book concludes that far from being foolish or pathetic, the men and women who led and supported the 1848 rising in Ireland were remarkable, both individually and collectively.

This book argues that despite the failure of the July rising in Ireland, the events that let to it and followed played a crucial part in the development of modern Irish nationalism

This study will engage academics, students and enthusiasts of Irish studies and modern History

• Language: English
• Publisher: Manchester University Press
• Release date: Jul 19, 2013
• ISBN: 9781847795748

Book preview

1

‘Ourselves alone’: Repeal, 1840–45

Political debate in Ireland in the first half of the nineteenth century was dominated by the imposing figure of Daniel O’Connell (1775–1847), a Catholic barrister from County Kerry. For three decades, he controlled Irish nationalist politics and his activities had significant repercussions not only on British political developments, but also within Europe and the United States. O’Connell used his oratorical and legal skills to maximum advantage within the hostile climate of Westminster, outlasting and outwitting a number of British political opponents. The timing of his birth was significant, enabling him to benefit from the relaxation of the Penal Laws in the late eighteenth century, in particular those reforms which allowed Catholics the right to vote, inherit land and join the professions. Consequently, he was one of the first Catholics to be called to the Irish bar. As a young man, he had been governed by an Irish parliament located in Dublin. In 1782, that parliament, under the leadership of Henry Grattan, had been granted more legislative independence from the British one. Although Grattan’s parliament was exclusively Protestant, landlord-dominated, and of short duration (1782–1800), it provided the inspiration for much of O’Connell’s subsequent views on Irish independence.

Despite O’Connell’s fiery rhetoric, he resisted the use of physical force, hoping to bring about major political change by peaceful means. During the 1798 uprising, he opposed the United Irishmen, even joining the yeomanry in Dublin to make it clear that he did not support violent upheaval.¹ This experience shaped his subsequently political philosophy; he believed that if Irish people were to achieve self-government, they had to work within the limits of the law and the constitution.² Throughout the remainder of his life, therefore, he favoured a form of limited independence based on Grattan’s Parliament, rather than the radical nationalism associated with Theobald Wolfe Tone and Robert Emmet. Although O’Connell’s greatest triumph lay in marshalling grassroots support in Ireland to challenge the British government, he remained a constitutionalist who preferred to work with, rather than against, the authorities. While he advocated social reform, his support was selective and he frequently chose to ally with the Whigs (or Liberals) rather than the radicals in British politics.³

O’Connell’s most successful political struggle was in relation to Catholic Emancipation, that is, the demand for Catholics to sit in parliament. Since 1801 the imperial parliament at Westminster had included representatives from Ireland, but continuity had been maintained with the exclusion of Catholic MPs. In 1823 O’Connell founded the Catholic Association to rally Irish opinion in support of Emancipation. His tactics were non-violent, based on the mass mobilization of a predominantly agricultural society. Significantly, this movement was financed through the collection of a weekly ‘rent’ that was paid for by his sympathizers, rich and poor alike. Between 1826 and 1829, over £35,000 was raised in this way, leading to accusations by his enemies that O’Connell was exploiting the Irish poor.⁴ In reality, the main contributors were the Catholic middle classes, who had most to gain from Emancipation.⁵

In 1829, fearing civil war, the British government conceded Emancipation. The relevant legislation was steered through parliament by a reluctant Duke of Wellington, who was supported by Robert Peel. Their intervention lost them personal support and created lasting bitterness within the Tory Party. Wellington was later to confide in Peel that supporting Emancipation was ‘the most painful act of my long life, as well as yours’.⁶ The achievement of the Catholic Association was remarkable: it had transformed an illiterate, peasant people into a disciplined extra-parliamentary force that was confident enough to challenge – and triumph over – the British state. O’Connell was the main beneficiary of this victory and the success earned him the title ‘the Liberator’ in Ireland, while gaining him admiration throughout Europe and the United States. Throughout his later life he often referred to his foremost achievement, telling children, ‘Do you know, my young friends, it was I who emancipated you?’, while admonishing Irish opponents with the observation, ‘Only for me, he would not have been emancipated.’⁷ However, Catholic Emancipation marked the apogee of O’Connell’s political career and his subsequent achievements were diminished by his arrogance, political misjudgements and personal opportunism. Although the rest of his career appeared to be devoted to the abolition of the Act of Union, he intermittently used Repeal as a political bargaining tool. In 1835 and again in 1846, he demonstrated that he was willing to abandon this aspiration in return for increased personal influence and the vague aspiration of winning ‘justice for Ireland’, which he defined as being reforms that would reconcile Catholic opinion to being part of the United Kingdom.⁸

Emancipation brought O’Connell and his supporters into mainstream British parliamentary politics. At the same time, it disenfranchised 40–shilling freeholders – Irish men who met the property qualifications to vote in the county and parliamentary elections – who were predominantly Catholic. Initially, it appeared that O’Connell would use Westminster as a platform to bring about a Repeal of the Union. In 1830, he wrote a series of addresses to the people of Ireland, inviting the nation to combine in order to return the domestic legislature, and he spoke on Repeal at several meetings.⁹ In that year, there were successful revolutions in France and Belgium, and the example of using force to achieve political ends encouraged some of O’Connell’s followers to offer to take up arms at that point to win Repeal.¹⁰ O’Connell, encouraged by the success of peaceful tactics in winning Emancipation, continued to believe that independence could be achieved through constitutional methods alone. In 1834, he introduced the Repeal question in the House of Commons, although even his supporters felt it was not one of his better speeches, and the debate was defeated by 523 votes to thirty-eight. Anticipating the tactics subsequently used by the British Chartists, he also presented a petition containing half a million signatures in favour of Repeal.¹¹ In the 1835 General Election, O’Connell made Repeal the focus of his campaign, despite the fact that the majority of Irish MPs continued to support the Union. At this point, his strategy changed and he used his high profile and political influence to win ‘justice for Ireland’, that is, concessions to Irish Catholics that would make political union with Britain more acceptable. To this end, he consented to the Lichfield House Compact by which he promised support to the Whig Party.¹² The ambivalence of his political stance had been clear as early as 1836 when he had spoken in favour of the Union, arguing that Irish people were ‘ready to become a portion of the Empire, provided they be made so in reality, and not in name alone; they are ready to become a kind of West Briton, if made so in benefits and justice’.¹³ He even stated that he was ‘opposed to Repeal if justice is done to Ireland’.¹⁴ By allying so publicly with the British Whig Party, O’Connell cemented his long-standing and implacable opposition to Sir Robert Peel and the Tory Party, but he also relegated Repeal to the background of Irish political demands. The collaboration did bring about some benefits, notably the softening of the relationship between the traditional symbol of the Protestant Ascendancy, Dublin Castle, and the Catholic population. One consequence was that a number of Catholics were appointed as magistrates.¹⁵ Overall, the alliance yielded little lasting benefit for Ireland or the Repeal movement. O’Connell later described this phase to a close confidant as a ‘six years experiment of trying to bring Imperial Justice to Ireland; an experiment in working with the government that failed’.¹⁶

In 1840, in a further reversal of strategy, O’Connell founded the Loyal National Repeal Association, which sought a Repeal of the Act of Union of 1800. The title of the new Association reflected the paradox of O’Connell’s nationalism; namely, that he wanted independence for Ireland within an imperial context and with links to the British monarchy being maintained. His timing was deliberate; he formed the Association in July 1840, in the wake of an attempt by Lord Stanley to limit the Irish franchise, an action that had outraged Irish voters.¹⁷ O’Connell, therefore, justified renewing the Repeal campaign on the grounds that equality with Britain had been denied to the Irish voters.¹⁸ In 1840 also, there was a possibility of war between England and France – which O’Connell hoped might play into his hands and help Repeal.¹⁹ Like the Catholic Association, the Repeal Association was organized on a national level, with its headquarters in Dublin. Unlike many of his contemporaries, O’Connell understood the value of imagery and historical symbolism, creating memorabilia to promote the movement, including a Repeal uniform and Repeal buttons. He also realized the value of publicity and propaganda, and helped found a newspaper, the Pilot, to promote the Repeal movement. Financial security was always a priority for O’Connell and a large part of the new Association’s income was derived from weekly donations, in the form of ‘Repeal Rent’. The purpose of the rent was twofold: it created an income for O’Connell and paid for the employment of permanent administrative officers, while giving the subscribers a direct stake in the movement. O’Connell had also created the ‘O’Connell Tribute’, which was a fund collected annually not only to pay for election expenses and petitions, but also for the upkeep of O’Connell’s establishments in Dublin, London and Kerry.²⁰ The fact that his lavish lifestyle was paid for by the Irish poor was continually criticized in the hostile sections of the British and Irish press. In this way also, his personal fortunes became inextricably linked with those of the struggle for independence. Nonetheless, the creation of an efficient national organization in a predominantly rural, illiterate society was one of O’Connell’s greatest achievements, and it provided a model for other large political organizations, including the British Anti-Corn Law League.²¹ His tactic of politically empowering deprived peoples was pioneering and won the admiration of both radicals and liberals throughout Europe.²² In reality, the unity of Repeal movement was at times illusory, reflecting the lack of homogeneity amongst the Irish population, especially Irish Catholics.²³ A further achievement of O’Connell, therefore, was to make the disparate social groups and their demands appear to be unified.

The return in 1841 of a Tory government led by Sir Robert Peel, a political and personal foe of O’Connell and an implacable enemy of Irish independence, provided a fresh focus for Repeal agitation. However, despite holding weekly meetings at the Corn Exchange in Dublin and hosting a programme of lectures in Ireland and Britain, the new Repeal movement did not have the force or vigour that it had possessed ten years earlier. By the end of the year, the wife of a landowner in County Wicklow, who deplored the belligerent tactics of Repealers, applauded the impact of the new Tory government, writing in her diary:

This vigorous new government has brought peace already, agitation is now such a mere farce that it soon must cease altogether, everyone appearing tired of it, the rent too has been a perfect failure, smaller sums than usual collected in the most Repealing neighbourhoods, none in some places, in others a refusal to allow of it. There is a great change coming over the Irish minds most certainly.²⁴

By 1842, O’Connell was privately admitting that the Repeal Association was suffering from apathy and needed to be energized.²⁵ The required vitality was provided by a group of young intellectuals of mixed religious origins who founded a new nationalist newspaper, the Nation.

The Nation

The origin of the Nation resulted from collaboration between three young writers: Thomas Davis, Charles Gavan Duffy and John Blake Dillon. In 1841, they decided to establish a newspaper that would support O’Connell’s Repeal movement, while promoting the idea of the Irish nation. The men had diverse backgrounds: Davis was a Protestant lawyer from County Cork; Duffy was a Catholic journalist from County Monaghan, who had previously edited the Belfast Vindicator; and Dillon was a Catholic lawyer from County Mayo, who had initially trained for the priesthood at Maynooth College, and then studied at Trinity College. They were all members of the Repeal Association, and Davis and Dillon were members of its General Committee, which ran the weekly meetings. They each admired O’Connell,²⁶ but they disliked the way in which he harangued those who did not support him, especially when his scorn was directed against Protestants.²⁷ A primary aim of the new paper was to promote education and conciliation within Ireland, in an attempt to bring all classes and denominations together. In particular, it endeavoured to bring Ulster Protestants into the Repeal movement. From the outset, therefore, the Nation adopted an inclusive approach to Irish nationalism, the aim of its editors being to ‘carry with us all the elements of a nation, its gentry and merchants, as well as its artisans and peasantry’.²⁸

The Nation first appeared on 15 October 1842 and weekly thereafter. Duffy was the proprietor, and Davis its main political editor. Dillon and Davis had already, unsuccessfully, tried their hands at journalism, but Duffy had been successful in running the Vindicator, the first Catholic newspaper in Belfast. The three men were discouraged by other nationalist journalists from attempting the new venture, as the Repeal movement was already represented by the Freeman’s Journal and the Pilot, and an additional nationalist journal was seen as unnecessary.²⁹ The Prospectus of the Nation countered such criticisms by pointing out that, ‘The necessities of the country seem to demand a journal able to aid and organize the new movement going on amongst us … Such a journal should be free from the quarrels, the interests, the wrongs and even the gratitude of the past. It should be free to apply its strength where it seems best; free to praise; free to censure, unshackled by sect or party.’³⁰ A policy of the new paper was not to engage with the group’s opponents in its columns, preferring to pursue a policy of positive patriotism.³¹ While Repeal was the main political focus of the Nation, it also supported social change in Ireland, but by gradual means. The editors believed that the economic transformation of Ireland would follow political independence as, ‘Repeal would abolish absenteeism and foreign taxation, and would give Irish offices and rewards to Irishmen … would secure peasants from oppression … and, with justice, would bring order, industry and riches.’³²

One of the achievements of the Nation was to successfully fuse political and cultural issues, thus bringing it closer to the romantic nationalism of many European radicals.³³ The paper aspired to be not merely the champion of the ‘National Party’, but also the voice of the ‘Literary Party’.³⁴ The founders of the Nation were united by their passion for Ireland, particularly its history and culture, and they sought to familiarize Irish people with their history and literary achievements through the commissioning of a ‘Library of Ireland’, which made these texts cheaply available.³⁵ They also decided that only books about Ireland or the Irish were to be reviewed. To make both the Nation and other Irish publications generally available, they established Repeal Reading Rooms throughout the country.³⁶ A distinctive feature of the paper was the ‘Poet’s Corner’, which proved universally popular. The songs and ballads that appeared were reprinted as a brochure, five months after the Nation’s first appearance. The instant success of the publication surprised even the editors. A second edition appeared a few months later, and both were reprinted as The Spirit of the Nation.³⁷ Unlike O’Connell, who on utilitarian grounds supported the decline of the Irish language, Davis recognized the place of language in forging cultural and political identity.³⁸ The fact that an English language newspaper was a tool for promoting Irish culture and Irish independence in a county where a large portion of the population were Irish speaking and illiterate demonstrated the complexity of Irish nationalism and Irish society in the 1840s.

The Nation brought together an eclectic collection of people, mainly professionals and students, who wrote for the paper in their spare time. Apart from sharing political convictions, the main writers became close friends, meeting for a weekly supper and socialising together.³⁹ Contributors included members of the discontented Protestant middle classes and the upwardly mobile Catholic middle classes. The Nation embraced poets and romantics, intellectuals, disgruntled Catholic priests, political radicals and social conservatives. Daniel O’Connell (anonymously) and his sons, John and Maurice, were occasional contributors during the early years of the Nation’s existence. John later explained that he had only contributed three poems that were ‘prosaic and heavy’.⁴⁰ While the majority of the writers were drawn from the professional classes, a small number were from poor backgrounds, notably the talented poet James Clarence Mangan who died in poverty in 1849, from a combination of malnutrition and cholera.⁴¹ A lesser- known, but equally impoverished poet was John de Jean Frazer, originally an artisan from King’s County. He was a Presbyterian who in his youth had been an Orangeman, before becoming an impassioned nationalist.⁴² Unusually, the regular contributors to the paper were paid generously, which was possible due to the high sales that the paper enjoyed. However, articles in the Nation were published either anonymously or under a pen-name although, occasionally, the writers’ initials were used.⁴³ The most influential and respected contributor to the Nation was Thomas Davis, and his premature death in 1845 left a vacuum that no single person could fill.

Despite the extensive array of talent that was involved in the early issues of the Nation, according to Duffy, ‘Among the new agencies which the Nation called into play, one subtle force was still wanting, the fertile brain and passionate soul of woman.’⁴⁴ This situation changed dramatically after 1845 when the influx of new writers included a high proportion of women. Before then, the female authors included Mrs Ellen Fitzsimons, who was Daniel O’Connell’s eldest daughter. She contributed a small number of poems, writing as ‘L.M. F.’.⁴⁵ A number of political articles were provided by Margaret Callan (née Hughes) whom Duffy referred to as the foreign correspondent for the Nation in 1843.⁴⁶ Callan was Duffy’s cousin and the wife of Dr J.B. Callan, a Dublin apothecary.⁴⁷ Although the ‘woman’s question’ was occasionally discussed in the paper, for the most part the focus of the female writers was on Repeal and related issues.⁴⁸

The popularity of the Nation was instant. On the first day of publication, it sold out its print run of 12,000 copies and it quickly became the best-selling newspaper in Ireland, with an estimated readership of over one million people.⁴⁹ These sales were impressive in a country that possessed a small middle class and contained a large number of people surviving at subsistence level.⁵⁰ The timing of the launch of the Nation in October 1842 was propitious for O’Connell as the Repeal movement was languishing, with only twenty Repeal candidates being returned in the 1841 General Election.⁵¹ Even his appointment as Lord Mayor of Dublin at the end of 1841 (the first Catholic one since the seventeenth century) was predominantly remarkable for its symbolic significance. The appearance of new journal, therefore, not only energized the political debate, but it attracted a new generation of young intellectuals to the nationalist cause. Thus the Nation was not only an important tool in promoting the history, culture and traditions of the nation of Ireland; it also broadened support for Repeal. Significantly, following its establishment, the Repeal movement enjoyed a resurgence in popularity.

The Nation’s success alarmed conservative opinion and the unionist press alike. The Quarterly Review described its literary contents as ‘perilous and mischievous because they were the actual convictions of the writers’.⁵² The Times opined that O’Connell’s activities were ‘as nothing compared to the fervour of rebellion which breathed in every page of these verses’.⁵³ The government realized the propaganda value for the Repeal movement in being supported by a strong nationalist press, especially one controlled by ‘young men of talent’. The Lord Lieutenant, therefore, sought out people willing to condemn Repeal, ‘to be applied in daily doses, and in the most pungent form, and this can only be done in the columns of a newspaper’.⁵⁴ The covert propaganda campaign commenced by the British government intensified as the popularity of the Nation increased. However, it was not just opponents of Repeal who disliked the journal’s popularity. The youth of its contributors – who were initially all under thirty – led some of the older members of the Repeal movement to refer to them scornfully as ‘Young Ireland’. Although both Davis and Duffy disliked this appellation, by 1845 the supporters of the Nation were using this name to describe themselves.⁵⁵ In contrast, close allies of O’Connell were increasingly referred to as ‘Old Ireland’, suggesting that there were two distinct groupings within the Repeal movement.⁵⁶ Following the public split in the Repeal Association in 1846, the term ‘Young Ireland’ was again used as a way of ridiculing the youthful group of intellectuals associated with the