How can the Irish be made into West Britons?

[EvolvedSaurian]

"The people of Ireland are ready to become a portion of the Empire, provided they be made so in reality and not in name alone; they are ready to become a kind of West Briton if made so in benefits and justice; but if not, we are Irishmen again."

So, Catholic Emancipation, either attached to the Act of Union 1800 or without the increase in property requirements, or both. Perhaps Ireland included with the Act of Union 1707? The Irish, or at least the Protestant Ascendancy, were for it, but the new Brits not so much.

Would one or several of these be enough? Any other ideas?

EDIT: And before anybody says anything, I realize 1707 is far too early for Catholic Emancipation.

 

[Andrew Hudson]

Catholic emancipation around 1800 was not on the cards. Relief for the potato famine, land reform as in Scotland and Home Rule in 1885 or possibly even just before the First World War. It all came to little too late. Niall Fergusson suggests that Irish Home rule may have been short lived and eventually independence would have followed. However it would have been probably peaecful like Norway and Sweden and possibly Scotland in a few years time.

 

[Thande]

Catholic emancipation around 1800 was not on the cards.

It could have been achieved IMO if the political will had been there, it was just that the Government was unwilling to confront the Protestant Irish Parliament over the issue.

In my timeline I have this achieved by the fact that nearly all the old parliament's members were killed during the alt-United Irishmen rebellion and the latter was successfully painted in the press as largely drawn from Protestant Irish (as indeed it was). If the British Government perceives that Jacobinism is strongest among Irish Protestants, they might not be hidebound enough to realise that building up the Catholics as a counterweight is a decent idea now that Britain's major enemy is no longer a Catholic backer.

 

[Tyr]

You need to show them they need Britain. Make things go even more unlucky for them and have the government save them. The potato famine was going to be bad even if there was a decent government in place, not much can be done about acts of god. Other alternatives though are unknown...a invasion is silly.

 

[Thande]

You need to show them they need Britain. Make things go even more unlucky for them and have the government save them.

Not to go offtopic but I was just reading some editorials on the BBC whose authors reckon the current crisis is doing exactly that for Scotland, undermining the SNP by showing that only a Westminster bailout can save the Scottish economy.

 

[Andrew Hudson]

Catholic emancipation didn't come in on mainland Britain until the 1820's which is why I regard it as unlikely. As it was widening thwe franchise amongst protestants came first. There were historical reasons why there was a fear of popery in Britain and there would be opposition, the Gordon Riots had taken place less than a hundred years before. People were more concerned about Jacobites than Jacobins.There were parts of Britain where these fears persisted until fairly recently i.e Liverpool had a protestant party and there is still some hostility in parts of Scotland

quote=Thande;1995287]It could have been achieved IMO if the political will had been there, it was just that the Government was unwilling to confront the Protestant Irish Parliament over the issue.

In my timeline I have this achieved by the fact that nearly all the old parliament's members were killed during the alt-United Irishmen rebellion and the latter was successfully painted in the press as largely drawn from Protestant Irish (as indeed it was). If the British Government perceives that Jacobinism is strongest among Irish Protestants, they might not be hidebound enough to realise that building up the Catholics as a counterweight is a decent idea now that Britain's major enemy is no longer a Catholic backer.[/quote]

 

[Thande]

Catholic emancipation didn't come in on mainland Britain until the 1820's which is why I regard it as unlikely. As it was widening thwe franchise amongst protestants came first. There were historical reasons why there was a fear of popery in Britain and there would be opposition, the Gordon Riots had taken place less than a hundred years before.

Er...the general thrust of your argument has some merits but your facts are wrong. Catholic emancipation in Britain was 1829-30, the Gordon Riots were only twenty years before 1800, and Jacobitism wasn't taken seriously after 1766, when the Papacy recognised the Hanoverians as the rightful rulers of Britain.

The Government under Pitt the Younger was actually in a position several times to enact emancipation, and Pitt wanted to (it nearly went through in OTL as part of the Act of Union) but they were blocked by George III, who believed it contradicted his coronation oath and thus he wouldn't grant Royal Assent. If George III had died in 1784 as he nearly did in OTL, Catholic emancipation could and probably would have come by the first decade of the nineteenth century.

 

[Zyzzyva]

Er...the general thrust of your argument has some merits but your facts are wrong. Catholic emancipation in Britain was 1829-30, the Gordon Riots were only twenty years before 1800, and Jacobitism wasn't taken seriously after 1766, when the Papacy recognised the Hanoverians as the rightful rulers of Britain.

The Government under Pitt the Younger was actually in a position several times to enact emancipation, and Pitt wanted to (it nearly went through in OTL as part of the Act of Union) but they were blocked by George III, who believed it contradicted his coronation oath and thus he wouldn't grant Royal Assent. If George III had died in 1784 as he nearly did in OTL, Catholic emancipation could and probably would have come by the first decade of the nineteenth century.

At the cost of sticking a 22-year-old George IV on the throne.

 

[Tyr]

Catholic emancipation is a little bit overrated IMO.
How many catholics would have been in a position to vote?
But then I suppose this can be read the other way; since it would have little tangiable effect you may as well grant it then it looks like things are fair.

 

[Thande]

At the cost of sticking a 22-year-old George IV on the throne.

He might have actually grown up in that case rather than turning into the Prince of Whales.

Catholic emancipation is a little bit overrated IMO.
How many catholics would have been in a position to vote?
But then I suppose this can be read the other way; since it would have little tangiable effect you may as well grant it then it looks like things are fair.

I think the ideal situation would have been to fix the property/literacy requirements so a roughly equal number of Catholics would have the vote to the number of existing Protestant voters. Force them into a power-sharing agreement or its 18th century equivalent.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

I don't remember the dates when various things changed, but this talk of 'Protestants' and 'Catholics' may be misleading.

IIRC, the only people eligible to run for the Irish parliament were Church of Ireland adherents - i.e. Anglican. The Presbyterian Ulsterman were as disenfranchised as the Catholics, and often enough made common cause with them.

If a bill had been passed REMOVING all religious qualifications, under the guise of supporting the several presbyterian groups, then Catholic emancipation could possibly have been slipped through without being explicitly stated that way?