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?
- Created by: rosiefaulkner
- Created on: 08-09-14 22:20
The Act of Union 1800- Arguments For/Against |
||
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
EvaluationSome 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