Talk:Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898

message: Is there a source for the boundary transfers? I've checked the text of the Local government (Ireland) Bill at HCPP and §§44-5 relate to boundaries; they don't specify boundaries but rather give the Local Government Board the power to make an Order-in-Council to alter boundaries (§62h).  There was a separate Local Government Board (Ireland) Act 1898. Also, Kilculliheen was  already a barony (in Waterford) by 1867, although the 1898 Act did bring about its transfer to Kilkenny.  jnestorius(talk) 03:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Local government in Ireland: inside out, the orders were made on 1 November 1898. jnestorius(talk) 05:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: They may well have been published in the Dublin Gazette. Sadly nobody has digitised it and put it online, and in the current economic circumstances not likely to happen any time soon. A day out at the National Library of Ireland then! Lozleader (talk) 12:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Was just looking at the Irish Times digital archives. Apparently they published a "map of Ireland showing the New Counties, with the boundaries of each original County" on page 6 of the 19 July 1898 edition. Unfortunately they want to charge me a tenner to look at it. Not today! My public library used to have access but not since they moved from ireland.com > irishtimes.com. Lozleader (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Local Government Board for Ireland published the boundary orders in extenso in their annual report of 1900, which I was able to extract the information from.Lozleader (talk) 00:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boundary transfers 

message: I have just removed this article from 	:Category:Irish Nationalist Movement, for the second time.
Far from being a nationalist goal, the 1898 Act was opposed by the major nationalist parties, because it was part of a series of measures implemented by the then Conservative/Unionist government with the specific intent of "conciliating" Ireland to destroy support for the Home Rule Movement.  This has been explicitly stated in the text of the article for some time, with references, in the section headed "Background".
The edit in which it was reinstated  included an edit summary "+categ Nat Movement (same period as Government of Ireland Bills) for approval !".  This is wrong: the Irish Government Bill 1893 was debated in the UK Parliament, while Gladstone was Prime Minister. The Liberals lost the 1895 election, and the 1898 Act was introduced under the Conservative govt of Lord Salisbury. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorisation 

message: Where it reads
"The members of the grand juries and baronial sessions were overwhelmingly Unionist and Protestant, and therefore totally unrepresentative of the majority of the population of the areas they governed.[3]"
did this really matter if the grand jurors were deciding where to build a bridge or a road? Unrepresentative in respect of Unionism, fair enough, but this is about local, not national, government. What had being Protestant to do with being a good or bad grand juror? Surely the fact that they were involved on the spot meant that they were not included in the despised group of absentee landlords? The phrase as drafted goes beyond WP:NPOV.86.43.191.172 (talk) 11:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Take out "totally" or otherwise tone it down, then. The point was that the Nationalist/Catholics were largely (entirely?) excluded from the grand juries, in terms of being eligible (they didn't hold enough property) or being able to choose the members (appointed by a judge). In that sense the bulk of the population were unrepresentated.  The creation of elected county councils changed this. There should be a way of phrasing this neutrally... Lozleader (talk) 13:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is likely that in some of the areas governed by grand juries (e.g. County Antrim, County Down and Belfast (if it was separately administered)), grand juries were not unrepresentative of the the majority of the population in those areas - in terms of politics and religion, at least (no doubt they were socially unrepresentative). How about if we change it to The members of the grand juries and baronial sessions were overwhelmingly unionist and Protestant, and therefore totally unrepresentative of the majority of the population in manyof the areas they governed? Mooretwin (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: former Grand Jury system

message: It appears that County Longford has been omitted in error from this article on the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898 as well as from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_counties_of_Ireland
The administrative County of Longford was established by the 1898 Act and should be included in this article.  Source: http://www.longfordcoco.ie/about_us.html
Irl32csc (talk) 15:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The County of Longford has been omitted in error 

message: Ihave just rewritten the reasons for county-boundary changes section. I haven't checked the source Irish Times article (19 July 1898), but the suggestion "wherever possible poor law unions (PLUs) were to be in a single county" seems false; the 1901 topographical census index of PLUs shows just as many straddling county boundaries as the 1871 index. OTOH the rural districts, whose areas were linked to those of the PLUs, were always required to be in one county. jnestorius(talk) 20:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  PLUs were to be in a single county?