Views of Admirable Irish Politicians - Charles Stewart vs Daniel OConnell - Essay Example

Charles Stewart Parnell and Daniel O’Connell Introduction Charles Stewart Parnell and Daniel O’Connell were great Anglo-Irish politicians, nationalists, academicians and socialist who believed in the unity and independence of Ireland from Britain. Over long time, Britain as whole and Ireland in particular had Protestants dominate political and government positions. This happened despite Catholics comprising the majority population in the region. When Daniel rose to politics, he intended to push the Emancipation of Catholics to allow Catholic believers to vote and hold big political seats. Charles Parnell also ascended to power and seemed to champion recognition of Catholics who were majority but lacked power to influence processes in Ireland. The greatest and common mission of the two personalities was to agitate for liberation of Ireland that they ended not achieving. The two personalities used various strategies in advancing their views. Some strategies were similar while others were different. Following are similarities and differences in terms of personalities, aims and strategies of the two Irish icons with relations to their political and social life. Similarities in Personalities One of the similarities is that both Charles Parnell and Daniel O’Connell were children of Ireland born in Ireland. Both attained university education and were reliable members of their respective societies in the advancement of the rights and needs of their people. Daniel and Parnell had similar feelings about Ireland and wanted to see their country freed from British anarchy and enabled to practice self-rule. Despite being Catholics, the family of Daniel O’Connell also owned land, as did the Parnell family. Daniel O’Connell entered politics in 1828 as the British Member of Parliament for County of Clare1. This happened after he spent a lot of time in activism, which was contrary to Charles Parnell who entered politics short time after graduation. Same to Charles Parnell, Daniel O’Connell used the poor peasants and farmers to agitate for the advancement of his views. Differences in Personalities Charles Stewart Parnell was a remarkable Irish nationalist born on 27th June 1846 in the County of Wicklow. Parnell was the third son and seventh offspring of an Anglo-Irish father John Parnell Henry and American mother Delia Stewart Tudor. Charles Stewart Parnell gained higher education from Cambridge University. Historical records also show that Charles Parnell attained most of his education in England. In 1875 after completing his studies, Charles secured election into the parliament where he served as collaborate of the Irish Parliamentary Party initially known as Home Rule League firmed by Isaac Butt2. As at the time of joining politics, Charles Parnell was only 29 years. Many politicians and philosophers of the time described Parnell as one of the most remarkable politicians of the 19th century that have ever existed in the world. Charles Parnell Stewart spent much of his lifetime involving in politics that concerned the Great Britain and specifically those of Ireland. The date of birth of Daniel O’Connell was 6 August in 1775 and took place near Cahirciveen in the County of Kerry. Unlike, Charles Stewart Parnell who rose from a rich family, O’Connell ascended from a poor background and depended on uncle for the sponsorship of his education3. This is not to say that Daniel’s family was poor, it had wealth but the penal laws enacted in Ireland during that time limited the influence and power of the family. While Charles Stewart Parnell grew spent most of his child age out of Ireland, Daniel spent much time his country and gained great interest in the traditional culture of his society that manifested through embracing songs4. While the family of Charles Stewart Parnell was Protestant, Daniel’s family was Catholic. Unlike Charles Parnell who developed interest in politics after graduating, Daniel ‘Connell gained interest in politics while still a law student at the Lincoln’s Inn in London5. Daniel O’Connell tended to avoid violence in all his campaigns and always appeared as a peaceful politician. Charles Parnell on other hand enjoyed great association with the Irish Republican Brotherhood and would defend the group when involved in violent acts. Similarities in Aims Charles Parnell Stewart entered political career with many aims that particularly targeted to liberate and achieve independence of Ireland from Britain. Charles rose politically at a time when the government of Ireland proved to be oppressive as evident through mistreatment of members of the Irish Republican Brotherhood. One of the aims of Charles Stewart was to fight for liberation and democratic space where majority and the ruling force could listen to the voices and concerns of the minority and the powerless groups6. He intended to lead the fight for liberation of Ireland from the manipulative rule of the British. Similar to Charles Parnell, Daniel O’Connell also aimed at fighting for liberation of the Ireland and gaining permission for self-rule. His strict and focused determination to push for repeal of the Union Act made Daniel nicknamed as the Liberator. Just like Charles Parnell, Daniel O’Connell entered politics with part of the intentions being fighting for liberation of Ireland from the Britain. Both Parnell and O’Connell depended on the already established organizations and political outfits to establish their political foundations. 7Charles Parnell used the Home Rule League and the Irish Republican Brotherhood while Daniel used the United Irish. Differences in Aims Unlike Daniel O’Connell, another aim of Charles Stewart upon entering the political limelight was to support and lead calls for land reforms. According to Charles, the government of Ireland charged high rent and taxes on landowners. Charles was able to understand the impact of high land rates considering that his family owned huge tracks of land. The proposed land reforms would help improve and enact fair governmental treatment of landowners in Ireland. 8Another purpose of land wars and land reforms in particular was to ensure that tenants who initially did not have rights to own land could start owning their own land. Belonging to a protestant family that ascribed to ordinances that were contrary to those of the majority Catholics, the family of Parnell endured bad depiction by the majority group. In fact, the majority of Irish believed that Parnell’s family being Anglo-Irish gentry, benefited from the oppressive system of landownership imposed on Ireland by the British authority. Daniel O’Connell rose at a time when the Catholics in Ireland faced serious discrimination and isolation. Catholics in the could not hold top governmental jobs like being in parliament, joining military or working in any civil servant department. This discrimination would inform part of the aims that Daniel would pursue in life. As at the time of graduation in 1798, Daniel had tuned to pursue religious tolerance, democracy, separation of church from the state and right to conscience. Similarities in Strategies To attain the outspoken position and glory, both Daniel O’Connell and Charles Stewart Parnell employed many strategies, some planned and some occurring automatically and in the process of advancing some agendas. For Charles to accomplish his aim of ensuring an independent Ireland that is free from British rule, he had to join politics. When spending the first year as a member of parliament, Charles appeared as a reserved observer who contributed little to debates advanced in the floor of the house. His initial conducts in the parliament seemed as strategy he employed to allow time to familiarize with the house and processes of debates9. He was a just a new entrant into the political limelight and had to spend sometimes gaining experience and understanding of norms and practices of parliamentarians. Daniel O’Connell also joined politics by first becoming a Member of Parliament for the County of Clara and later campaigned to become a Member of Parliament of Kerry County after review of laws that hindered Catholics from securing seats in the British House of Commons. As part of the strategies to compel land reforms in the Irish land system, Charles Stewart Parnell in 1880 organized series of visits to America where he mobilized funds for supporting operations of his Home Rule League and National Land League. During the elections of 1880, Charles Parnell supported William Gladstone for the post of prime minister of Britain with expectation that the synergy would facilitate the process of land reforms10. Upon successful election, William Gladstone planned and presented an emergency Land Bill that faced defeat in the House of Lords. This failure prompted the members of the Land League to change strategy in advancing for Irish land reforms. Just like Charles Stewart Parnell, Daniel O’Connell had to join politics to address his missions and aspirations of ensuring religious fairness and tolerance in Ireland. With that, he developed interest in the politics played by radical politicians like Tom Paine, William Godwin and Jeremy Bentham whom Daniel went to an extent of reading their books to understand underlying political ideas. In 1798, the obsession that Daniel O’Connell had towards the radical politicians made him to become radical and associated with the United Irish group that gained inspiration from the French Revolution that ruined his stay in France11. It is due to the association that Daniel went into hiding during the 1798 insurrection for fear that English authority would arrest him. Both Charles Stewart and Daniel O’Connell used threats against the government of Britain to attract attention. The threat exposed them in bad picture that would lead to their arrests and prosecution. The new strategy to counter the defeat of the Ireland Land Reform Bill by the House of Lords saw Charles Stewart organize boycotts and incited farmers to fight for their rights in 1881. This was just few months after Parnell secured election as the leader of the Home Rule League (Irish Nationalist Party) in the new parliament12. The determination of Parnell would later lead to realization of small steps in land reform policies after the passage of the Gladstone Land Act of 1881. However, the passage of the Act did not bring much of the desired freedom and reforms that majority members of the Land League aspired for Ireland land system. The new Act presented clauses of concessions and provided frameworks for determination of land issues on court hearing and decisions that would not promise the wanted land justice. Moved by the dissatisfaction with the Gladstone Land Act of 1881, Charles Parnell continued to mobilize for financial support from America, with which he planned series of rallies and campaigns to encourage boycotts as ways of influencing land agents and property owners. The practice gained the term boycott after Captain Boycott of Mayo County suffered to death due to neighbours exercising the principles of moral force13. While speaking in Ennis, Parnell told the public to isolate any person who took land from the peasants and do so under the principles of moral Coventry (moral force). The practice would see tenants and peasant citizens cut commercial or social contacts with any person deemed to oppose the intentions of the Land League14. The policy also had to cover landowners, tenants and farmers who grasped lands of evicted peasants. These sentiments led to the arrest and imprisonment of Parnell in Kilmainham Prison in October 1881 after the British government passed the Coercion Act. The arrest worked to ensure total suppression of the Land League considering the move by the government to arrest and imprison all the members. Despite being in prison, Parnell still commanded great influence over Irish and even asked tenants while in prison to stop paying for rents. Worried about the continued support for Parnell, Prime Minister Gladstone in 1882 negotiated with Parnell to drop land questions and sign the Kilmainham Treaty that would lead to his release and that of accomplices. In move to unify Irish after the release of Charles Parnell and 35 other members of Land League, Prime Minister Gladstone tasked Lord Fredrick Cavendish and Thomas Burke to lead reconciliation process in Ireland. However, the plan failed to succeed due to immediate murder of the two peace initiators in Phoenix Park by members of a secrete group named the Invisibles. To demonstrate innocence, Charles Parnell expressed public regrets for the murders.15Even after signing the Kilmainham Treaty and gaining freedom, Charles Parnell did not drop the land question as agreed and would later reorganize the Land League into National Irish League that has Home Rule as its central focus. In 1885, Parnell managed to mobilize support of many and had majority representatives in parliament from his party. He used the number to support Liberal Party into winning post of Prime Minister and promising support for Home Rule. Through the 1830s, Daniel O’Connell became a powerful political figure in the House of Commons. He used his position to push campaigns for law and prison reforms, free trade, Jewish emancipation and abolition of slavery16. He also campaigned for the universal suffrage act that would see the government support the poor. The efforts by the radical politicians including O’Connell to realize reforms suffered set back after the parliament failed to approve the Reform Act of 1832. The disappointment would influence the radicals to change strategy and create the Chartists group that employed initial approaches used by Daniel in Ireland to gain public support17. The strategy would involve organizing and mobilizing public opinion in favour of their cause and in the process send warning of violence to the government if the group fails to achieve success. With the same strategy as that later used by Charles Parnell of supporting the government to attain effective hearing, Daniel O’Connell led his group of 45 loyal followers to negotiate for political deals with the Lord of Melbourne. In the deal, O’Connell and the group agreed to support the Lord with his Whig Party who promised to compensate for the support by supporting Irish reforms. On assuming power, the Whig Party supported passage of the Tithe Commutation, the Irish Poor Law and Irish Municipal Reform Acts. Daniel felt discontented with the achievements and wanted the government to change the Irish Poor Law and even pass more reforms, but the Whig Party refused18. The refusal saw Daniel lead his group to withdraw support for the Whig government. In the year 1841, Daniel became Lord Mayor of Dublin and first catholic to hold the position. He promised to continue with advocacy for the reviews of the Union Act to allow Ireland achieve liberation and independence from Britain. O’Connell used the same strategy of blackmailing government to pass reform laws to avoid possible outbreak of civil war in Ireland. However, few members of parliament in the House of Commons supported the call for repeal of Union and Daniel failed in the attempt. In 1843, O’Connell conducted series of campaigns and meetings cliqued as “Monster Meetings” across Ireland to mount pressure for the repeal of the Union Act that led to unification of Ireland and England. Multitude numbering to more than 10000 people attended the meetings, and O‘Connell’s power and influence was growing huge and British authorities felt threatened. 19The threat and feelings of insecurity made British authorities to deploy troops to scatter and suppress a meeting organized by Daniel to take place in Dublin in October of 1843. To avoid violence as warned by Daniel O’Connell, the then Prime Minister Robert Peel outlawed a large meeting planned by the radicals to discuss repeal of the Union at Clontarf. Daniel urged his supporters to obey the order but later faced arrest, charged with sedition and conspiracy against the government, and sentenced to one-year imprisonment20. However, Daniel later appealed his conviction that led to his freedom that saw him leave prison in 1844 as a hero and a true fighter for the freedom of speech. Another similarity between Daniel O’Connell and Charles Stewart relates to them assuming middle religious grounds and working with people ascribing to diverse religion to advance their views. To achieve religious tolerance, Daniel O’Connell a Catholic involved and collaborated with the Protestants in various ways21. He joined the elite class of Protestant Irish in advancing calls for abolition of slavery in the country. He used his influence to mobilize peasant Catholics in supporting the anti-slavery calls. His determination to wage the anti-slavery wars saw him achieve success in 1833 when the British Empire passed and approved the Anti-Slavery Act. Charles Stewart mobilized farmers and tenants in Ireland equally without discriminating in the lines of religion differences. Both Charles Parnell and Daniel O’Connell relied on the social and political outfits to advance their political views and social agendas. In 1826, the Catholic Association began supporting candidates for parliamentary elections. Daniel O’Connell was one of the beneficiaries of the organization having won in the by elections of Clare County. However, the effectiveness of the penal laws barred Daniel from securing seat in the House of Commons. To secure a seat in the British House of Commons, elected members of Parliament has to vow with Protestant oaths. It is the reason that Daniel could not join the House of Commons despite his unanimous election. Daniel used his position to influence views of radical Members of Parliament in the House Commons such as Joseph Hume, Sir Francis Burdett, Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel to advance reforms22. The radical politicians often warned the parliament continued isolation of Catholics would lead to civil wars in Ireland. The pressure affected by the radical would compel the British Parliament to pass the Catholic Relief Act of 1829 that led to Catholic Emancipation. This allowed election of O’Connell to House of Commons in 1830 as a representative of County of Kerry. Consequently, the government outlawed the Catholic Association alongside eliminating the forty shilling for freehold suffrage as given to Irish. Charles Parnell entered political field in 1875 through an election to the British House of Commons having pegged on the sponsorship of Home Rule League headed by Isaac Butt. He joined the House of Commons as a member of parliament representing Meath County. In the election, Charles secured the support of the Fenians that manifested through a direct support of Patrick Eagan. To advance the resolves of the Home Rule League and the Irish Republican Brotherhood (IRB), Charles Stewart led the fellow members of parliament who also supported the IRB (Frank of Dungarvan, John of Mayo, Edmund of Tipperary and Joseph of Cavan) in exercising obstructionist strategies. In employing obstructionism, Charles Stewart and his fellow used technical procedures in compromising running of businesses and eventually disenabling the House of Commons from operating optimally. The purpose for adopting and exercising the obstructionism policy was to make the House of Commons to focus and put more emphasis on issues affecting Ireland that previously remained insignificant to the house. Obstructionism encompassed a number of actions that would ensure effective disruption of house businesses. Among the actions included MPs sympathizing with IRB giving long speeches in the parliament that mostly did not conform to the debated topic. At one point, Parnell and the group delayed operations of the House of Commons for 45 hours, and the move infuriated Butt23. This behaviour always offended Isaac Butt who led the Home Rule League. In fact, the radical and extremist wing of the Home Rule League developed due to distrust that Charles and the group had on the leadership of Isaac Butt. The differences between Butt and the fellow members of the Home Rule League led to his ouster from power despite being the founder of the organization. In 1879, Charles Stewart Parnell received appointment as the president of National Land League formed by Michael Davitt. The main reason for the formation of the National Land League was to defend tenants from evictions out of their land due to the looming food problem that would resemble the Great Famine. The Land League also intended to ensure that tenants get fixed tenure, free sale and pay less rent on the farms. The long-term goal of the Land League was to help Irish tenants and farmers own land for subsistent activities. Charles used his influence as the leader of the National Land League to persuade farmers to stand on their feet and defend their ground in fighting for the rights of owning land24. Differences in Strategies Unlike Charles Stewart Parnell who shared all ideologies with the Home Rule League and the Irish Republican Brotherhood, Daniel though a supporter of the United Irish opposed the insurrection of 1798. Daniel believed that the time was not ripe to teach Irish citizens about democracy and that the insurrection worked to decrease than increase the desire for Irish liberation. 25Daniel O’Connell disliked rebellion as part of techniques to advance his wishes for Ireland. However, he intended to use the parliament to advance for religious and political equality in the country. In the year 1823, Daniel O’Connell liaised with Thomas Wyse and Richard Sheil to form the Catholic Association. Daniel would then mobilize the poor Catholics to join for membership by paying one shilling every year. He encouraged Catholic priests to advertise the group and act as recruiting agents. O’Connell used the Catholic Association to lead campaigns that advocated for repealing the Act of Union, universal suffrage, secret ballot for elections and end the Irish tithe arrangements. During campaigns, O’ Connell tried much to avoid violence as being part of his strategies, but occasionally warned the British authorities about the likelihood of using violence should the government ignore their views26. The first time that Charles Stewart caught the public attention was in 1876 when he defended members of Irish Republican Brotherhood who the oppressive Irish government killed and detained some for stirring rebellion. In his submission in the House of Commons, Charles Stewart faulted as lies the claims by the Irish government that the members of the IRB committed series of murder against innocent citizens in Manchester27. This stand proved his support for the operations of the IRB in Ireland and opposition against the Irish government. Further justification of the support of Charles for the IRB related to the association of the group with the Home Rule League whose sole purpose was to liberate and ensure Ireland that would be free from policies and influences of England. The support that Charles Stewart extended to the Fenians worked to draw the attention and support of the members of Irish Republican Brotherhood towards him. To further the agendas of the IRB, Charles Parnell made it a custom to present and spread the sentiments and ideologies of the group in both Ireland and Britain. Charles would later establish close relationships with radical members of the Home Rule League that included Joseph Bigger who was an MP of Cavan since 1874, Edmund Dwyer-Gray who served as Tipperary MP since 1877, Frank Hugh O’Donnell who was a Dungarvan MP from 1877and John O’Connor Power who served as MP for the County of Mayo since 1874. Association with the listed fellow members of parliament who also supported the vision of the IRB strengthened the stand and resolve of Charles Stewart Parnell28. Contrary to Charles Stewart Parnell who only focused on Irish issues and British by extension, Daniel O’Connell extended his politics to America where he advanced and supported call for anti-slavery. He rebuked the American authority for perpetuating slavery and this move had to compromise the support he enjoyed among the followers who felt that it was appropriate for him to concern with Irish issues only. 29People who opposed his participation in the American antislavery agitation claimed that O’Connell’s act would ruin the achievements of the Repeal force. The stand of O’Connell regarding slavery led to Queen Victoria of England to pronounce him a political liability indicating that his stand would cause diplomatic troubles between America and Britain30. Conclusion Charles Stewart and Daniel O’Connell were both committed and admirable politicians of Ireland. The two though appearing at different generation, Daniel belonging to 18th to early 19th century and Charles belonging to 19th century had special devotion to fight for the liberation of Ireland from Britain. The two attained university education and highly enlightened to social and political issues of their country. Politics and association with established social and political organization defined the means of ascendancy to what seemed as radical politics. Among the differences between the two politicians relates to their time of dominance in the politics of Britain and Ireland in particular. Daniel O’Connell believed in peace and always pursued his views through religion and legal expertise rather than violence. This stand made him part ways with the United Irish that defined his initial foundation into politics. Charles Stewart on the other hand seemed to love violence considering his ever support for the Irish Republican Brotherhood even when accused of committing murders across Britain. Bibliography BBC, 2014, Charles Parnell (1846 - 1891). (Online). Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/parnell_charles.shtml (Accessed 5th May 2014). Clara County Library. Daniel OConnell (1775-1847). (Online). Available from: http://www.clarelibrary.ie/eolas/coclare/people/daniel.htm (Accessed 5 May 2014). Felton, Todd, A journey into Irelands literary revival, Roaring Forties Press, Berkeley, California, 2007. P. 69 Jackson, Alvin, Home rule: an Irish history, 1800-2000, Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 2003. P. 39 Jenkins, Brian, Irish nationalism and the British state from repeal to revolutionary nationalism, McGill-Queens University Press, Montreal, 2006. P. 86 Kelly, Matthew J., The Fenian ideal and Irish nationalism, 1882-1916, Boydell & Brewer, Woodbridge, 2006. P. 41 Kinealy, C. 2007, The Irish Abolitionist: Daniel O’Connell. (Online). Available from: http://irishamerica.com/2011/08/the-irish-abolitionist-daniel-oconnell/ (Accessed 5th May 2014). Kinealy, C. 2007. The Liberator: Daniel O’Connell and Anti-Slavery. (Online). Available from: http://www.historytoday.com/christine-kinealy/liberator-daniel-o%E2%80%99connell-and-anti-slavery (Accessed 5 May 2014). Knight, K. 2009. Daniel OConnell. (Online). Available from: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11200c.htm (Accessed 5 May 2014). McNamara, R., 2014, Daniel OConnell of Ireland, The Liberator Valiant Irish Politician Battled for Catholic Emancipation in the Early 1800s. (Online). Available from: http://history1800s.about.com/od/leaders/a/danoconnellbio.htm (Accessed 5th May 2014). O’Hara, Bernard, Davitt: Irish Patriot and Father of the Land League, Todor Gate Press,Straide, Ireland, 2010. P. 27 Penston, Tony, A history of Ireland for learners of English, TP Publications, Greystones, Co. Wicklow, 2010. P 70 Simkin, J. 2014. Daniel OConnell. (Online). Available from: http://spartacus-educational.com/PRoconnell.htm (Accessed 5 May 2014). Thomas, Marilyn, The Diary, AuthorHouse Publisher, Bloomington, 2008. P. 19 Walsh, Oonagh, Irelands Independence, 1880-1923, Psychology Press, New York, 2003. P.6 Williams, Leslie, Daniel OConnell, the British press, and the Irish famine: Killing remarks, Aldershot [u.a.], Ashgate, 2003. P. 170 Read More