The Act of Union 1800- Arguments For/Against

In 1799 Pitt was determined to get union between England and Ireland despite previous failures to get it passed. He gave the Chief Secc the task of winning over the Irish people. Most Irishmen were unconcerned and the politically concerned were divided. What were the arguments for and against union?

?

The Act of Union 1800- Arguments For/Against

Advantages

  • Geography and Military Power: Ireland was weak in defence but a union would enable the British govt to take responsibility to the defence of Ireland against rebellion and war.
  • The present system of govt divided between London and Dublin as well as an ind. Irish parliament only encouraged division and inefficiency- weakness could be fatal during a war.
  • Union would enable Ireland to become a part of the wider British economy and this would encourage economic growth and prosperity as proved by the Union with Scotland.
  • The fact that Roman Catholics would be a minority in the UK rather than the majority it is in Ireland would remove the fears of Protestants and incr. likelihood that Catholics could get equal rights. 'Strength and confidence encourage liberality.'
  • The hatreds of Irish life would be tempered by 'a moral assimilation' into British society which would settle age-old differences between the Irish Celt and the Anglo-Saxon- thus sustaining the union.
  • The Ascendancy itself rested ultimately on the military power of Britain.

Disadvantages

  • Preservation of Irish nationality. Ireland was a separate society with its own institutions and interests and should have its own independent parliament, despite it's allegiance to the British crown.
  • The Irish parliament justified its own existence as after 1782 (when it was est.) Ireland was more prosperous and cultivated, the arts flourished and Dublin was a major city in Europe.
  • 'God and nature never intended Ireland to be a province, and by God she never shall.'
  • The Ascendancy which had originally helped Irish progress, had crushed the Irish rebellion of 1798.
  • Sir John Foster argued: 'if we adopt the proposed Union... we shall be brought back to the miserable state in which we were when governed by the laws of another parliament sitting in another land, ruled by their will, not by our own.

Evaluation

Some believe the anti-unionists protested too much. The 'nation' they claimed to speak for- like the Irish parliament itself- represented only a tiny minority of the Irish people seeing as the Catholics were still outside of the political nation. After 1798, the Ascendancy continued to be against both Catholic emancipation and parliamentary reform, all it wished to do was return to the status quo which had almost caused disaster. One anti-unionist Mp said 'we want no alternative- we call for a sacred adherance to the constitution of 1782.' Admittedly, some anti-unionists like Henry Grattan supported both Catholic emancipation and parliamentary reform but this only revealed divisions in the anti-unionists. This made it difficult for them to make an effective stand against their opponents. In 1799, Ireland was 'politically bankrupt'.

Comments

No comments have yet been made