Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:24:07.609Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The artisans of Dublin and Daniel O’Connell, 1830-47: an unquiet liaison

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 July 2017

F. A. D’Arcy
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

O’Connell’s conflict with the trade unions in 1837–8 is well-known, but the reasons behind it, stretching back over seven years, are not. Though Connolly and Ryan mention the O’Connell-artisan relationship, the artisan-O’Connell nexus has not been considered previously. It is more than a mere verbal inversion, for if he had his attitudes to them they too had their say about him. Until the publication of ‘Irish trade unions and politics, 1830–50’ by Rachel O’Higgins, the activities of the Irish artisans in politics was something of a dark spot. Now that it has been lightened the time may be opportune to record and examine the unquiet liaison between the artisans of Dublin and O’Connell.

Type
Articles
Information
Irish Historical Studies , Volume 17 , Issue 66 , September 1970 , pp. 221 - 243
Copyright
Copyright © Irish Historical Studies Publications Ltd 1970

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Connolly, Labour in Ire., p. 156. Ryan, W P., The Irish labour movement, from the twenties to our own day (Dublin, 1919), pp 89–90 Google Scholar.

2 O’Higgins, R., ‘Irish trade unions and politics, 1830-50’, in Hist. Jn. iv, no. 2 (1961), pp 208–17 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Open letter of the trades’ committee to Daniel O’Connell, Freeman’s Journal, 18 Jan. 1838.

4 Speech of John Boland at the Repeal Board of Trade meeting on 4 June 1843, F.J., 9 June 1843.

5 Resolution passed at a meeting of the journeymen tailors of Dublin on 18 Feb. 1833, F.J., 21 Feb. 1833. These are but two among many examples in which the artisans expressed their belief that the act of union was directly responsible for the decay of city trade and that its repeal would restore prosperity. Another example, argued in detail, is the ‘Report of the working carpenters to the National Trades’ Political Union on the state of their trade’, F.J., 5 May 1832.

6 Records of the Dublin Typographical Provident Society, Irish Graphical Society, Dublin, Minute book, 21 Aug. 1830.

7 F.J., 29 Dec. 1830.

8 P.R.O.I., C.S.O., R.P 1803/10261, 1803/10343 (1830).

9 F.J., 5 Nov. 1830.

10 He had been counsel for those artisans accused of the murder of sawyer Thomas Hanlon in 1829 and had, therefore, experience of labour crime. Reports of these trials are to be found in F.J., 7 Jan. 1830.

11 Fitzpatrick, W J., Correspondence of Daniel O’Connell (London, 1888), i, 241 Google Scholar.

12 F.J., 14 Jan. 1831

13 F.J., 29 Jan. 1831

14 F.J., 20 Aug. 1831.

15 The Argus, 25 July 1846.

16 Ibid. The three were Peter Martin of the Regular Dublin Car penters, Andrew Kirwan of the Stonecutters’ Society of St John, and Adam Ward of the house painters. Ward subsequently left his union on becoming a master painter. N.L.I., O’Connell papers, MS. 13648: Adam Ward to Daniel O’Connell, 15 Jan. 1838.

17 F.J., 14 Nov 1831.

18 F.J., 20 Mar. 1848.

19 Fagan, W, The life and times of Daniel O’Connell (Cork, 1847-8), i, 114 Google Scholar.

20 The Comet, 23 Oct. 1831.

21 Journeymen tailors’ meeting of 19 Feb. 1833, F.J., 22 Feb. 1833.

22 F.J., 11 Mar. 1833.

23 Mclntyre, A., The liberator: Daniel O’Connell and the Irish party, 1830-47 (London, 1965), p. 126 Google Scholar.

24 Fagan, , O’Connell, ii, 243–52 Google Scholar.

25 F.J., 12 Mar. 1833.

26 See below, p. ?.

27 S.P.O.L, C.S.O., R.P., Outrage reports, 2470/944 (1833): ‘D.C.’ to magistrates of the head office of police, 10 Dec. 1833.

28 Dublin Evening Post, 7 Dec. 1833 (hereafter cited as D.E.P).

29 S.P.O.I., C.S.O., R.P., Outrage reports, 2470/944 (1833).

30 Ibid.

31 Ibid.

32 D.E.P., 12 Dec. 1833.

33 D.E.P., 12 Dec. 1833.

34 Ibid., 12 Dec. 1833, editorial.

35 F.J., 29 Jan. 1834.

36 F.J. 3, 9, 23, 24 Feb. 1834.

37 F.J., 2,3, 16,23 Mar. 1834.

38 F.J., 9 Apr. 1834.

39 Fitzpatrick, O’Connell, pp 433-4: O’Connell to P V Fitzpatrick, 8 May 1834.

40 S.P.O.L, C.S.O., R.P., Outrage reports, 109/7 (1834): Ebrington to William Gossett, 11 Sept. 1834; Elrington was lord lieutenant from Apr. 1839 to Sept. 1841

41 F.J. 4 Dec. 1835. One of the assailants was sentenced to transportation for life, in January 1836 (F.J., 9 Jan. 1836)

42 S.P.O., G.S.O, R.P., Outrage reports, 9/19, 9/33, 9/45, 9/50, 9/63, 9/68,9/74,9/79,9/83 (1836).

43 Ibid., 9/15 (1836).

44 Ibid., 9/5 (1836).

45 Ibid., 9/77 (1836).

46 Ibid., 9/188 (1836)., two cases on 19 Oct., 9/217 (1836), two cases on 20 Nov. 1836.

47 Police themselves sometimes admitted the difficulty of getting victims and witnesses of labour outrages to come forward with information, and consequently the maximum number of cases which police recorded in any year is not necessarily the full total of possible labour assaults.

48 P.R.O., H.O. series 100, 246, ff 21-3: Mulgrave to Russell, ? Aug. 1835.

49 A factor not referred to by Connolly or Ryan; nor is it alluded to in the detailed study of the issue by Clarkson, J. D., Labour and nationalism in Ireland (New York, 1925 Google Scholar)

50 F.J., 11 Aug. 1836.

51 One John Kelly of the Broguemakers’ Society denied the charges at the meeting where O’Gonnell made them, and there the matter rested.

52 Fagan, O’Connell, i, 84.

53 Fagan, O’Connell, ii, 561.

54 Ward, J T, The factory movement (London, 1962), pp 88, 156-7Google Scholar.

55 Hansard 3, xxxiii, 737-90.

56 Ward, Factory movement, p. 157.

57 Fagan, O’Connell, ii, 574-5.

58 See below, p. ?.

59 S.P.O.L, C.S.O., R.P., Outrage reports, 9/15 (1837), 13 Jan. 1837.

60 Ibid., 9/54 (1837), 24 Feb. 1837.

61 Ibid., 9/89 (1837), 4 Apr. 1837-

62 Ibid., 9/90 (1837), 4 Apr. 1837

63 Ibid., 9/130 (1837), 14 June 1837.

64 Ibid., 9/90 (1837): magistrate George Studdert to head office of police, 29 June 1837.

65 Ibid., 9/138 ( 1837): magistrate Frederick Darley to Lord Lieutenant Mulgrave, 3 July 1837.

66 Ibid., 9/148 (1837): magistrate Tyndall to head office of police, 8 July 1837.

67 Ibid., 9/257 (1837): head office of police, 6 Nov. 1837. Two weeks before this, police who had tried to rescue the victim of a combination assault were themselves severely beaten; as a result, those who saw the attack on Armstrong may have been afraid to intervene. Forty-eight policemen were later dismissed after an investigation into this failure of police nerve.

68 Ibid., 9/257 (1837): James Moore to Thomas Drummond, 14 Nov. .837

69 Ibid., 18/2642/1838: Annual report of the commissioners of Metropolitan police. Their reports for 1836 and 1837 are not extant but in that for 1838 they mention 44 cases of combination assaults as occurring in 1836 and 97 cases in 1837.

70 Trades involved were: carpenters in 3 cases; chandlers in 3 cases; slaters in 2; hatters in 2; bricklayers in 2; coopers in 1; and brogue- makers in 1; in addition, 3 cases arose from labourers’ attempts to implement a trade union objective.

71 Compared with 44 cases in 1836 there were 97 in 1837, of which 71 took place between June and November (S.P.O.I., C.S.O., R.P., Outrage reports 18/2642/1838)

72 F.J., 7 Nov. 1837.

73 F.J., 9 Nov. 1837: Thomas Daly to Daniel O’Connell.

74 F.J., 14 Nov. 1837: Henry Searson to Daniel O’Connell.

75 F.J.. 22 Nov. 1837.

76 Trades’ committee to the committee of the National Trades’ Political Union, 14 Dec. 1837, N.L.I., O’Connell Papers, MS 13648.

77 He did indeed have the private information of employers: John McMullen to O’Connell, 4 Feb. 1837 (N.L.I., MS 13648), Adam Ward to O’Connell, 15 Jan. 1838 (MS 13648); Peter Connery to O’Connell, 21 Dec. 1837 (MS 13647)

78 F.J., 19 Dec. 1837.

70 F.J., 27 Dec. 1837. Two interesting points about this statement are its revelation of the consciousness of status among the artisans, and the fact that it was the first explicit indication by them that they would look to the use of public utterances in protecting and forwarding their interests; subsequent developments in the 1840s show that this is exactly what they did, see below, pp 240-42.

80 F.J., 27 Dec. 1837

81 F.J., 31 Dec. 1837.

82 F.J., 3 Jan. 1838; the six unions were the Regular Bricklayers’ Society, the Regular Cutlers’ Society, the Regular Bootmakers, the Stone cutters’ Society of St John, the Operative Society of Friendly Stone cutters (a rival union), and the Friendly Union of Carpenters of Great Britain and Ireland.

83 F.J., 9 Jan. 1838; the charge was made at a meeting of the Liberal Club of St Anne’s parish by an employer paperstainer, John Rafferty.

84 F.J., g Jan. 1838.

85 Ibid.

86 Ibid.

87 Ibid. ‘Irish respect’ was an allusion to Richardson’s taunting him with having voted for the Poulett Thompson motion in 1836.

88 F.J., 18 Jan. 1838.

89 F.J., 23 Jan. 1838.

90 F.J., 31 Jan. 1838.

91 S.P.O.I., G.S.O., R.P., 18/2642/1838; Annual report of the commissioners of Metropolitan Police (1838).

92 Ibid.

93 F.J., 22 Apr. 1840.

94 F.J., 25 Nov. 1840.

95 F.J., 28 Dec. 1840.

96 F.J., 20 Nov. 1840.

97 Annual reports of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, 1838-4.6, N.L.I. These reports show twelve cases of combination in 1839, two cases in 1840 and not a single case thereafter to 1846.

98 F.J., 27 Nov. 1841, editorial.

99 Ibid. Both letters were published on the same date.

100 For example, stonecutters in 1844, shipwrights in 1846 and chandlers in 1850 (F.J., 4 Dec. 1844, 30 Jan. 1846, 29 Jan. 1850).

101 The Pilot, 21 Oct. 1842.

102 F.J., 13 Aug. 1844.

103 F.J., 14 May 1846.

104 Connolly, Labour in Ire., p. 156.

105 Ryan, Irish labour movement, p. 89.

106 Clarkson, Labour and nationalism, pp 136-7

107 O’Brien, Econ. hist. Ire., union to famine, p. 402.

108 Hansard 3, xl, 1096.

109 Hansard 3, xl, 1097.

110 Hansard 3, xl, 1086.