It's extraordinary that the Famine per se, only recently past, doesn't seem to have been a political factor that played in 1852
I can't remember off the top of my head where the property qualification for voters stood at this stage, and have no idea what the proportion of the population (i) eligible to vote (ii) actually voting would have been. Perhaps the cohorts most devasted by the Famine weren't voting? Also I wonder if there was much voting reform between this and the Parnellite era. Anyway all my free time is taken up elsewhere at the moment so I won't have the leisure to poke around for the answer.
Of course those most affected by the famine couldn't vote - they either died or emigrated!
But it must have had considerable impact on those further up the tree, even if they were not direct victims of it. So I was surprised that it seemed to be so small a factor.
On voting reform - yesm the franchise was broadened a bit in 1850, and then not again until the Parnell era, so that was indeed a factor.
Comments 3
I can't remember off the top of my head where the property qualification for voters stood at this stage, and have no idea what the proportion of the population (i) eligible to vote (ii) actually voting would have been. Perhaps the cohorts most devasted by the Famine weren't voting? Also I wonder if there was much voting reform between this and the Parnellite era. Anyway all my free time is taken up elsewhere at the moment so I won't have the leisure to poke around for the answer.
Reply
Of course those most affected by the famine couldn't vote - they either died or emigrated!
But it must have had considerable impact on those further up the tree, even if they were not direct victims of it. So I was surprised that it seemed to be so small a factor.
On voting reform - yesm the franchise was broadened a bit in 1850, and then not again until the Parnell era, so that was indeed a factor.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment