Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T02:32:27.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“Irish First”: Daniel O’Connell, the Native Manufacture Campaign, and Economic Nationalism, 1840–44

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2017

Paul A. Pickering
Get access

Extract

The relationship between nationalism and the land, observes Philip Bull in his recent study of the Irish land question, “formed a nexus which was so strong that the one issue became effectively a metaphor for the other.” Any student of nineteenth-century Irish politics can appreciate the force of this eloquent conclusion. Nevertheless, the preoccupation with the land by contemporaries and historians alike has relegated an important strand of economic nationalism devoted to manufacturing industry to a footnote in Irish history. The fate of manufacturing industry in the aftermath of the Union of 1800 is the subject of controversy among scholars suggesting, at the very least, substantial regional and sectoral variations. Contemporaries, however, were in little doubt that Irish manufacturing industry was suffering from terminal decline, a perception that had formed a regular reprise in public comment throughout the previous century. As John O’Connell wrote in 1849 “the question of Irish manufacturing has been, for more than a century and a half, one of the chief grounds of bitterness and bickerings” between Ireland and England.

Type
Research Article
Information
Albion , Volume 32 , Issue 4 , Winter 2000 , pp. 598 - 616
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference on British Studies 2000

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.)

Footnotes

*

The quotation is from Daniel O’Connell, see: Weekly Freeman’s Journal (hereafter cited as WFJ) (20 August 1842, p. 7). I am grateful to Professors Pat Jalland and F. B. Smith, Dr. Philip Bull, and Suzanne Pickering for their comments on an earlier draft of this article.

References

1 Bull, P. J., Land, Nationalism and Politics: A Study of the Irish Land Question (Dublin, 1996), p. 4Google Scholar

2 See Cormac Ó Grada, , Ireland: A New Economic History, 1780–1939 (Oxford, 1994), pp. 273–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Geary, Frank, “The Act of Union, British-Irish trade, and pre-Famine deindustrialization,” Economic History Review 48, 1 (1995): 68–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar; “Deindustrialization in Ireland to 1851: some evidence from the census,” Economic History Review 51, 3 (1998): 512–41.

3 O’Connell, J., Recollections and Experiences During a Parliamentary Career from 1833 to 1848, 2 vols. (London, 1849), 1: 337.Google Scholar

4 These campaigns are mentioned in passing by Cronin, Maura, Country, Class or Craft? The Poli-ticization of the Skilled Artisan in Nineteenth-Century Cork (Cork, 1994), pp. 7, 99–100, 135Google Scholar; Hill, Jacqueline, From Patriots to Unionist: Dublin Civic Politics and Irish Protestant Patriotism, 1660–1840 (Oxford, 1997), pp. 289–90Google Scholar; O’Brien, G., The Economic History of Ireland from the Union to the Famine (London, 1921), p. 394Google Scholar and in two footnotes in The Correspondence of Daniel O’Connell, ed. O’Connell, M. R., 7 vols. (Dublin, 1972), 6CrossRefGoogle Scholar: 380n; 7: 2n. The movement is not mentioned in either McDowell, R. B., Public Opinion and Government Policy in Ireland 1801–1846 (London, 1953Google Scholar), Nolan, K. B., The Politics of Repeal: A Study of the Relations between Great Britain and Ireland 1841–1850 (London, 1965CrossRefGoogle Scholar), or Black, R. D. Collison, Economic Thought and the Irish Question (Cambridge, 1960Google Scholar).

5 With one exception, the Boards and cooperative Marts are ignored in all of the published work dealing with the labor and cooperative movements in nineteenth century Ireland including: Ryan, W. P., The Irish Labor Movement: From the Twenties to Our Own Day (Dublin, 1919Google Scholar); Clarkson, J. D., Labor and Nationalism in Ireland (New York, 1925Google Scholar); O’Higgins, R., “Irish Trade Unions an Politics, 1830–50,” Historical Journal 4, 2 (1961): 208–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar; D’Arcy, F. A., “The Artisans of Dublin and Daniel O’Connell, 1830–1847: an unquiet liaison,” Irish Historical Studies 17, 66 (1970): 221–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar; D’Arcy, F. A., “The National Trades’ Political Union and Daniel O’Connell, 1830–1848,” Eire-Ireland 17, 3 (1982): 7–16Google Scholar; Ellis, P. Beresford, A History of the Irish Working Class (London, 1972Google Scholar); Bolger, P., The Irish Co-operative Movement: Its History and Development (Dublin, 1977CrossRefGoogle Scholar); Boyle, John W., The Irish Labor Movement in the Nineteenth Century (Washington, 1988Google Scholar). The exception is an important but little known pamphlet: Leighton, C. D. A., The Irish Manufacture Movement 1840–1843 (Maynooth, 1987), pp. 3–39.Google Scholar Leighton provides a rich account of the movement in the provinces as well as in Dublin, particularly in 1840–41, although his focus and conclusions differ significantly from those offered here. I am grateful to Ann Donoghue of the Department of Modern History at the National University of Ireland, Maynooth, for providing me with a copy of this publication.

6 Pilot (11 November 1840, p. 2). For Flanagan see Ker, D. A., Peel, Priests and Politics: Sir Robert Peel’s Administration and the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland 1841–1846 (Oxford, 1982), p. 144nGoogle Scholar; Leighton, , Manufacture Movement, pp. 7–8.Google Scholar For Francis Street and conditions in the Liberties see Chart, D. A., The Story of Dublin (Nendeln, 1971), map facing p. 356Google Scholar; Pilot (24 June 1840, p. 4; 6 July 1840, p. 1); Flinn, M. W., Introduction to Report on the Sanitary Condition of the Labouring Population of Great Britain (1842; reprint Edinburgh, 1965), p. 24.Google Scholar

7 Hill, From Patriots to Unionists, pp. 286–87; D’Arcy, Fergus, “An age of distress and reform,” in Dublin Through the Ages, ed. Cosgrove, Art (Dublin, 1988), pp. 100, 102.Google Scholar

8 Pilot (2 October 1840, p. 1; 19 October 1840, p. 3); Mooney, T., A History of Ireland From Its Settlement to the Present Time (Boston, 1846), pp. 1433–44, 1460.Google Scholar Leighton, , Manufacture Movement, does not refer to Mooney’s account. In his only reference to it, O’Brien (Economic History, p. 394Google Scholar), states that the Irish Board was formed in 1839. I have found no evidence of this.

9 Pilot (3 August 1840, p. 2; 9 September 1840, p. 3–4; 2 October 1840, p. 2).

10 Pilot (1 June 1840, p. 2; 9 September 1840, p. 2; 25 September 1840, p. 2; 28 September 1840, p. 2; 2 October 1840, p. 1).

11 Pilot (26 October 1840, p. 1).

12 Pilot (23 October 1840, p. 1; 26 October 1840, p. 1; 28 October 1840, p. 3; 4 November 1840, p. 1–2); Leighton, Manufacture Movement, pp. 25–26.

13 Pilot (6 November 1840, p. 1; 18 November 1840, p. 1; 23 November 1840, p. 4; 4 December 1840, p. 2; 18 December 1840, p. 4; 26 February 1841, p. 3). The organization was more stream-lined elsewhere. In Kilkenny, for example, there was one Board that encompassed manufacturers, operatives, shopkeepers and consumers. See Pilot (2 December 1840, p. 3).

14 Pilot (2 November 1840, p. 3; 25 November 1840, p. 1–2; 2 December 1840, p. 3; 1 January 1841, p. 2; 12 February 1841, p. 1; 15 February 1841, p. 4; 19 April 1841, p. 3–1; 23 July 1841, p. 1); WFJ (13 February 1841, p. 7; 29 May 1841, p. 3, 5; 24 July 1841, p. 8); Leighton, Manufacture Movement, pp. 10–13. Like other systems of exclusive dealing, the manufacture movement depended on the participation of women. The Board had a formal Women’s Committee and there was also an informal women’s’ group among the operatives of the Liberties. See Pilot (7 May 1841, p. 4); WFJ (14 August 1841, p. 3).

15 Pilot (15 May 1840, supplement, p. 1); WFJ (19 June 1841, p. 1); O’Connell Correspondence, vol. 6, p. 340n; vol. 7, p. 249n.

16 Pilot (19 October 1840, p. 3; 4 November 1840, p. 1); WFJ (22 May 1841, p. 1). See also Pilot (4 December 1840, p. 3; 11 December 1840, p. 2). For its part the Repeal Association resolved that it should not, “as a body, be connected with the Board of Trade&.” See Pilot (2 December 1840, p. 2).

17 WFJ (22 May 1841, p. 1; 11 December 1841, p. 7; 7 May 1842, p. 1); O’Connell Correspondence, 6: 263n; Beckett, J. C., The Making of Modern Ireland (London, 1981), p. 331.Google Scholar

18 Butt, I., Protection of Home Industry (Dublin, 1846Google Scholar); Pilot (1 January 1841, p. 1; 8 January 1841, p. 3); Black, Collison, Economic Thought, pp. 141–12Google Scholar; Leighton, , Manufacture Movement, pp. 18–19.Google Scholar See also Moss, L. S., “Isaac Butt and the Early Development of the Marginal Utility Theory of Imputation,” in James Wilson, Isaac Butt, T. E. Cliffe Leslie: Pioneers of Economics, ed. Blaug, M. (Aldershot, 1991), pp. 33–54Google Scholar; DeVere, T. White, The Road of Excess (Dublin, [1945]),Google Scholar ch. 3.

19 WFJ (8 May 1841, p. 2; 2 October 1841, p. 3); Pilot (6 August 1841, p. 1); Mooney, History of Ireland, pp. 1433–4, 1458–59. For Luke Dillon’s boast see Pilot (25 September 1840, p. 2). Some operatives were skeptical about these claims, but Flanagan was insistent that he had verified them. See Pilot (13 August 1841, p. 1).

20 Pilot (15 January 1841, p. 1; 27 January 1841, p. 2; 19 February 1841, p. 3; 26 February, 1841, p. 4). Flanagan was apparently criticized in the Dublin Trades’ Journal whose reporters were subsequently excluded from meetings of the Board. Unfortunately there is no extant copy of this journal.

21 WFJ (28 August 1841, p. 3). The Board’s request was diplomatically deflected to Westminster by the garrison commander. See also WFJ (22 May 1841, p. 1; 12 June 1841, p. 6).

22 Pilot (25 November 1840, p. 1–2; 30 November 1840, p. 4; 4 December 1840, p. 3; 14 December 1840, p. 1).

23 WFJ (15 May 1841, p. 5; 22 May 1841, p. 1). Part of the rationale for seeking the support of the ascendancy was the depth of their pockets. The Pilot estimated that since the Union £100 million had been spent by Irish aristocrats in London. See Pilot (8 June 1840, p. 2).

24 Pilot (28 December 1840, supplement, p. 1).

25 For the Agricultural Association see WFJ (20 February 1841, p. 3).

26 WFJ (7 August 1841, p. 8). Morgan Largan, a founding member of the operative Board, expressed a similar concern in February. See Pilot (19 February 1841, p. 2).

27 Pilot (14 April 1841, p. 4); WFJ (7 August 1841, p. 6); Daniel O’Connell to John O’Connell (21 November 1840 and 4 December 1840), O’Connell Correspondence, 6: 379, 387.

28 T. Mooney to Daniel O’Connell (4 March 1841), O’Connell Correspondence, 7: 26; WFJ (7 August 1841, p. 8).

29 See Pilot (9 September 1840, p. 3–4); Reports of the Parliamentary Committee of the Loyal National Repeal Association of Ireland, 3 vols. (Dublin, 1844), 1: 150; Collison Black, Economic Thought, p. 140.

30 WFJ (31 July, 1841, p. 1; 7 August 1841, p.8); Pilot (25 August 1841, p. 3).

31 WFJ (31 July 1841, p. 1).

32 WFJ (7 August 1841, p. 8).

33 Pilot (22 December 1841, p. 2); WFJ (25 September 1841, p. 7; 8 January 1842, p. 6; 4 June 1842, p. 7).

34 WFJ (25 December 1841, p. 8; 26 February 1842, p. 4).

35 WFJ (4 November 1841, p. 8); D’Arcy, “The Artisans of Dublin,” p. 221.

36 WFJ (25 September 1841, p. 7; 24 September 1842, p. 8); Pilot (10 December 1841, p. 1).

37 WFJ (25 September 1841, p. 7; 4 November 1841, p. 8). For the sawyers see D’Arcy, “The Artisans of Dublin,” p. 241.

38 WFJ (25 November 1841, p. 7). For the earlier dispute see Clarkson, Labor and Nationalism, pp. 139–40.

39 WFJ (31 July 1841, p. 1; 30 October 1841, p. 2). For Feargus O’Connor see Pickering, P. A. “Class Without Words: Symbolic Communication in the Chartist Movement,” Past and Present 112 (August 1986): 144–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

40 WFJ (5 March 1842, p. 5; 7 May 1842, p. 4; 24 September 1842, p. 8; 8 October 1842, p. 6–7). See also MacDonagh, O., The Emancipist: Daniel O’Connell, 1830–47 (London, 1989), pp. 163–68.Google Scholar

41 WFJ (8 July 1843, p. 4–5; 14 September 1844, p. 6; 24 September 1844, p. 2).

42 Pilot (21 January 1842, p. 4); WFJ (25 September 1841, p. 7; 22 January 1842, p. 3; 4 June 1842, p. 7; 25 June 1842, p. 7; 16 July 1842, p. 5).

43 WFJ (2 October 1841, p. 3). Temperance also bound them together see Pilot (18 March 1840, p. 2); Leighton, Manufacture Movement, pp. 5–6.

44 WFJ (4 June 1842, p. 7).

45 WFJ (4 June 1842, p. 5; 16 July 1842, p. 5; 23 March 1844 p. 1).

46 WKJ (24 September 1842, p. 8).

47 WFJ (23 March 1844, p. 1; 8 June 1844, p. 3).

48 See Clarkson, Labor and Nationalism, p. 287.

49 Pilot (16 July 1841, p. 4); WFJ (7 August 1841, p. 8; 20 August 1842, p. 7); O’Neill Daunt, W. J., Eighty-five Years of Irish History (London, 1888), p. 207.Google Scholar

50 Foster, R. F., Modern Ireland: 1600–1972 (London, 1989), p. 210.Google Scholar Leighton draws attention to the widespread Protestant support, including the “furiously anti-Catholic Warder,” Manufacture Movement, p. 20.

51 H. Shaw, The Dublin Pictorial Guide and Directory of 1850 (1850, reprint Belfast, 1988).

52 See Nation (26 October 1850, p. 142).

53 WFJ (21 May 1842, p. 5).

54 WFJ (20 August 1842, p. 7). The others were the abolition tithes, repeal of the Irish poor law, and the extension and protection of the suffrage.

55 See Crimmins, J. E., “Jeremy Bentham and Daniel O’Connell: Their Correspondence and Radical Alliance, 1828–1831,” Historical Journal 40, 2 (1997): 359–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

56 See Dinwiddy, J., Bentham (Oxford, 1989), p. 1061Google Scholar; Long, D. G., Bentham on Liberty (Toronto, 1977), pp. 190–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Halévy, Elie, Tne Growth of Philosophic Radicalism (London, 1928), p. 514.Google Scholar

57 See Pickering, P. A. and Tyrrell, A., The People’s Bread: A History of the Anti-Corn Law League (London, 2000), pp. 73–74.Google Scholar

58 Crimmins, , “Jeremy Bentham and Daniel O’Connell,” pp. 362–63Google Scholar; O’Connell, M. R., Daniel O’Connell: The Man and His Politics (Dublin, 1990), pp. 122, 131, 135Google Scholar; MacDonagh, Oliver, Early Victorian Government, 1830–1870 (London, 1977), p. 35.Google Scholar

59 See WFJ (18 September 1841, p. 8; 25 September 1841, p. 7). John O’Connell developed a more detailed version of this economic history in his Argument for Ireland (Dublin, 1844), pp. 131–247.

60 See WFJ (25 September 1841, p. 7; 2 April 1842, p. 6; 7 January 1843, p. 6; 21 January 1843, p. 8).

61 Geary, , “The Act of Union,” pp. 68–69Google Scholar; Ó Grada, , A New Economic History, pp. 306–13.Google Scholar See also Green, E. R. R., “Industrial Decline in the Nineteenth Century,” in The formation of the Irish Economy, ed. Cullen, L. M. (Cork, 1968), pp. 89–100.Google Scholar

62 See Pilot (28 May 1841, p. 4).

63 WFJ (2 April 1842, p. 6).

64 See, for example, Collison Black, Economic Thought, p. 141.

65 WFJ (2 January 1841, p. 5; 7 January 1843, p. 6).

66 See Bain, D., The Egregious and Dangerous Fallacies of the Anti-Corn League; or, the Protection of Agriculture, not a question with landlords, but for the whole Kingdom (Edinburgh, 1843), p. 59.Google Scholar

67 Pilot (19 April 1841, p. 3); WFJ (25 September 1841, p. 7). O’Connell’s support for the repeal of the corn laws had both a tactical and nationalist dimension. See Pickering and Tyrrell, The People’s Bread, ch. 4.

68 WFJ (21 May 1842, p. 5).

69 Lee, J., “The Social and Economic Ideas of O’Connell,” in Daniel O’Connell: Portrait of a Radical, ed. Nowlan, K. B. and O’Connell, M. R. (Belfast, 1984), p. 72Google Scholar

70 Morning Chronicle (24 November 1840, p. 2); The Times (4 October 1841, p. 3; 22 December 1841, p. 7; 29 December 1841, p. 6).

71 WFJ (22 May 1841, p. 1; 5 March 1842, p. 5).

72 Pilot (27 November 1840, p. 2; 26 March 1841, p. 4); WFJ (5 March 1842, p. 5; 12 March 1842, p. 5).

73 Pilot (13 November 1840, p. 1; 20 November 1840, p. 1; 8 March 1841, p. 2; 12 March 1841, p. 1; 28 May 1841, p. 1; 31 May 1841, p. 1; 13 August 1841, p. 1); WFJ (15 May 1841, p. 1; 25 June 1842, p. 7; 16 July 1842, p. 5).

74 O’Connell entertained these suspicions about Thomas Mooney whose resignation as Secretary in May 1841 occurred, in part, over a salary dispute. Following his resignation Mooney spent nine years in Canada and the United States, serving as north American correspondent for the Pilot (1841-12) and Nation (1842-46), and writing for the Boston Pilot after 1846. He also wrote his History of Ireland in 1846 which included an account of the movement. Mooney returned to Dublin in 1850 to promote “emigration to the Free States of America” and became involved in a revived campaign to promote Irish manufacture and the Irish Democratic Association. He is not the same Thomas Mooney, a Fenian known as “Trans-Atlantic,” who contributed to the Irish World and was later editor of Mooney’s Express in San Francisco. See Pilot (19 October 1840, p. 3; 23 October 1840, p. 1; 3 May 1841, p. 4); Irishman (16 March 1850, p. 160); Nation (9 February 1850, p. 384; 9 March 1850, p. 442); Devoy’s Post Bag 1871–1928, ed. O’Brien, W. and Ryan, D. (Dublin, 1948), pp. 193–4Google Scholar; D. O’Connell to J. O’Connell (4 December 1840), O’Connell Correspondence, 7: 387. Similar suspicions were a common feature of nineteenth century politics on both sides of the Irish Sea. See Pickering, P. A., “Chartism and the ‘Trade of Agitation’, in Early Victorian Britain,” History 76, 247 (June 1991): 221–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

75 WFJ (25 June 1842, p. 7; 16 July 1842, p. 5).

76 WFJ (4 June 1842, p. 5; 10 September 1842, p. 8). Whereas advertisements for Irish manufacture were in vogue during 1840–42, by late 1843 a major Dublin outlet, the Emerald House, at Guinness’, was almost mocking the movement. Emerald House advertised its large range of imported wares and boasted that its new system of measurement, obtained from Brussels and supervised by tradesmen from London, could even fit Daniel O’Connell so that he would not have to face “the Great Struggle for Liberty in a tight coat.” See WFJ (2 September 1843, p. 1; 21 October 1843, p. 1).

77 WFJ (5 November 1842, p. 2).

78 WFJ (7 January 1843, p. 6).

79 WFJ (5 November 1842, p. 6).

80 WFJ (2 November 1844, p. 8); Boyle, Irish Labor Movement, pp. 45–46.

81 Dundalk Democrat (20 October 1849, p. 1). See also Nation (24 November 1849, p. 200); Cork Examiner (29 May 1850, p. 4).

82 For Sir Horace Plunkett see Rempe, P. L., “Sir Horace Plunkett and Irish Politics 1890–1914,” Eire-Ireland 8, 3 (1976): 6–20.Google Scholar Rempe (p. 8) stresses Plunkett’s indebtedness to the Rochdale pioneers without referring to the Irish Marts.

83 Connolly, J., Labor in Ireland (Dublin, 1917), p. 150.Google Scholar For Griffith see Younger, C., Arthur Griffith (Dublin, 1981), pp. 23–24.Google Scholar Griffith also favored the re-industrialization of Ireland behind a wall of tariff protection.

84 See Clarkson, , Labor and Nationalism, p. 172.Google Scholar