User:Jnestorius/Renamed Irish places

Geographical renaming

Law

 * THE Lord Lieutenant having received a representation of the inconvenience sustained by the Inhabitants of the Town and Neighbourhood of Castletowndelvin, in the County of Westmeath, from the frequent misdirection of Letters intended for them to "Castletown," and the consequent transmission thereof to other places bearing that name, his Excellency has been pleased to direct that on and after the 1st day of January next, the said Town of Castletowndelvin shall be called and known by the name of "Delvin," and that the said change of name shall be notified to and observed by all Public Departments.


 * Statutory basis:
 * (No SI yet for ss188-197) for Revised Act 2001 No.37 Part 18 as replaced via Act 2011 No.20 s.48
 * which replaced 31 Jan 2019 (commenced by SI 23/2019 and SI 24/2019)
 * (never commenced) Act 2001 No.37 Part 18 as enacted
 * and
 * SI 131/1955 for Act 1946 No.26 ss.76–79 as replaced via Act 1955 No.9 s.53
 * which replaced
 * SI 126/1949 for Act 1946 No.26 ss.76–79 as enacted
 * which replaced
 * Public Health Acts Amendment Act 1907 s.21 [in part]:
 * The local authority may, with the consent of two-thirds in number and value of the ratepayers in any street, alter the name of such street or any part of such street.
 * and
 * Dublin Corporation Act 1890 s.42 [part]
 * and may at the instance and with the consent of the majority in number and value of the ratepayers in any street alter the name of such street or of any part of a street

(See June 2016 opinion summarising then situation — 1946+1955 in force, 2001 not commenced)

Earlier Valuation Acts: 1854 (17 Vic c17 ss3, 10) allowed Griffith to change townland boundaries but apparently not names; Griffith's ultra vires regularised by 1857 (21 Vic c45) which [Andrews sez but wording suggests not -- which explains 1859] allowed names also changed on application of landowner with consent of Lord Lieut; doubt removed by 1859 (22&23 Vic c8) but usually only applied to minor placenames, not townlands; till 1867 with owner's input to OS, thereafter without. Boundary Survey (Ireland) Act 1859 s.1
 * The Provisions contained in the said recited Act [20 & 21 Vict. c. 45] for enabling the Boundary Surveyor for the Time being, when he shall find that the Boundaries of any Land have been erroneously marked out, laid down, or described on the Ordnance Map of any County, to make such Alteration therein as the Circumstances of the Case shall require, shall extend and apply to enable such Boundary Surveyor in any Case where any Lands have not been correctly named on such Ordnance Map, so far as the same can be shown by any ancient Deed, Instrument, Document, or Writing, to make such Alteration therein as the Circumstances of the Case shall require; provided that Application be made to him for such Alteration by the Owner or Owners, or reputed Owner or Owners of such Land, stating therein the Grounds on which such Application is made, and the Name of the Lands which it is proposed by such Owner or Owners to substitute for the Name of such Lands so entered on such Ordnance Map

Dublin was bound by the Dublin Corporation Act 1890 to get ratepaters' consent for name changes. This did not apply to bridges (hence seven changed) or new streets (Cathal Brugha St officially named in 1932 after popular usage in the 1920s) but otherwise only 4 of the 40+ recommendations of an early-1920s committee were implemented.

Local act provisions repealed by 1946 act:

Enniscrone vote hits a legal 'hitch' Seanad 2019-12-03 John Paul Phelan:
 * Following the enactment of the Local Government Act 2019, provisions under Part 18 of the amended Local Government Act 2001 relating to the change of names of areas were finally commenced ... allows for new regulations to be given effect for the holding of local plebiscites ... Department has prepared draft regulations ... a further complication ... it would not be possible under Part 18 of the Local Government Act 2001 to change a placename in a non-Gaeltacht area that is the subject of a placenames order under Part 5 of the Official Languages Act 2003. ... both Departments (Local Government and Culture/Gaeltacht) jointly will seek the further advice of the Office of the Attorney General. If there is an unintended conflict between the two separate statutory frameworks, it may be necessary to resolve the matter by additional amendments to the relevant provisions before giving effect to the regulations for the holding of local plebiscites. ... I understand that a potential piece of legislation is on the schedule and that there is an Official Languages (Amendment) Act that on the parliamentary schedule. The Department's policy objective is that it should be possible for a plebiscite to be held in any area to change a placename. The same mechanism for doing so should apply everywhere in Gaeltacht and non-Gaeltacht areas.

Debates
IT 1924 [mentions Bray and Cobh]:
 * At present urban councils seem to be able to earn a cheap reputation for patriotism by changing the names of Irish towns at their own sweet will. We suggest that such changes be possible only as the result of a plebiscite of the inhabitants.

[1946 act] originally only included procedure for changing name of Street. Dáil added procedure for townlands and towns; Seanad for "localities".

1945 debate on 1946 act's bill          
 * Minister Sean MacEntee: Section 55 relates to the conditions to be fulfilled where it is desired to change the name of a thoroughfare. Many representations have been received with regard to this matter asking that the existing law, contained in a Public Health Act of 1907, which required the consent of a majority of two-thirds of the number of ratepayers and valuation in a street before a change could be made, should be modified. It is proposed to repeal the relevant section of the Act of 1937 in this regard and to make fresh provisions by which a change can be made by the local authority, if not less than two-thirds of the persons rated in the street consent. The condition as to securing the consent of occupiers having an aggregate valuation of two-thirds of the valuation of the street has been dropped. I should point out that this change in the name of a street can be made only by the local authority. It cannot be effected by the manager.
 * Denis Allen: As regards Section 55, which proposes to give power for changing the name of a street, I think it is a pity that, while the Minister has gone a certain distance in the right direction, he did not go further. There is no reason why, because certain types of people live in a street and probably do not see eye to eye from the national point of view with the Government, or with the members of the local authority or with the general mass of the people, they should have the power to prevent a street name being changed: that they should be able to prevent that street being given a good national name in accordance with the views of the mass of the people in a town or district.
 * I think that the Minister, without putting in any proviso, should give a local authority the power to change the name of the street where the members of the local authority desire to do so. After all, they are the elected representatives of the people. They are in a responsible position and should have that much power without being obliged to get the views of the ratepayers in any particular street. I suggest to him that he should go further in this section and give that power to a local authority.
 * I would urge him to go still further and give the local authority, the county council in this case, the power to change the name of any village or townland in their county, if they think it well to do so. I think the time has arrived when a council should have that power. This, I suggest, is an opportune time to give county councils that power. It is a power that county councils have been seeking for quite a long time, and it was expected that the Minister would have made provision for it in this Bill. I know, for example, that 99 per cent. of the people in a village in County Wexford desire that its name should be changed to its old Gaelic name. The county council has not the power to do that at present. I believe I would be correct in saying that 99.9 per cent. of the residents in that village would desire to have that done. The official name which the village has at present is not the name that the mass of the people desire it should have. Their desire is that it should have the old Gaelic name.
 * James Dillon: What village is that?
 * Denis Allen: Bunclody, which is called, officially by the Government and everybody else, Newtownbarry. The residents of that village strenuously object to that name. It is called officially Newtownbarry, and there is no power in law for the county council to change that name to its proper national name, that is, Bunclody. I hope the Minister will amend this section in order to give local authorities power to change the names of villages, and towns also. The local authority of a town should be given power to change the name of their town if they wish. If the local authority in Dublin wanted to call this city Baile Atha Cliath instead of Dublin, there is no reason why they should not have power to do so.
 * Dillon: In regard to the changing of street names, I think the new provision is a considerable improvement on the old one and, as far as I have any experience of these matters, I would strongly advise the Minister to ignore the suggestions put forward by Deputy Allen, of his own Party, in this matter. We all know that there has been a ramp in this matter of the changing of street names. We all know that some years ago illegal organisations were engaged in this ramp and tried to force the hands of local authorities. If the Minister were to go further in the direction in which Deputy Allen wants him to go, he might find himself in the position where illegal organisations would endeavour, by force, to influence the members of local authorities to take particular steps in this matter. For business reasons alone, it is essential that the residents of a particular street should have the right to say whether or not the name of that street should be changed. Trade interests demand as a matter of right that there should be some preservation of majority rule in this matter. Old-established firms will not like to have street names changed. Apart from trade interests, there is the other matter of this public ramp which, I think, is to be deprecated rather than encouraged.
 * Liam Cosgrave: Another section to which I should like to refer is Section 55 which deals with changing the names of streets. Deputy Allen, last night, said that he thought the majority of a council should have the right to change the name of a street at any time. While, no doubt, it is desirable that a majority of ratepayers or citizens residing in a street should, if they desire to change the name of the street, be allowed to do so, I think that this practice of changing the names of thoroughfares can lead to a very ridiculous position. In Russia, for instance, the changing of names of towns has been a striking feature of the Soviet administration. When an individual happens to be prominent or in power in the country or in a position in which he can change the name of a town, he very often gives it his own name. Then, when he is superseded by somebody else there is another change, the result being that even those who were the most honoured individuals in that country find that the names which they had given to certain places are abolished to give place to those of their successors. I think it would be a ridiculous situation if one day a place might be known as Dublin and the next have its name changed to Kerry. Recently, I read of an incident in which a number of members of a certain council decided to change the name of certain streets, and the county manager had to get up in the night to put back the original names.
 * While, no doubt, it may be a form of patriotism to change the name of certain places, I think it is a doubtful form of patriotism, because in ten or fifteen years' time, as happened in Russia, some other parties may come along and suggest names for these places which, they believe, are more entitled to be honoured. We find, too, that people who rendered very distinguished service to the country have had their names attached to poor, unimportant thoroughfares. Most of the slum areas in Dublin have the names of very honoured persons attached to them. I do not know whether it ever strikes the people who are anxious to have these changes carried out that honoured names should be attached only to important thoroughfares. There will, of course, be the difficulty that if this desire for change is not limited in some way, we may reach the stage when a person will not know whether he is living in Pat Murphy's Street or Pat McGrath's Street. As a form of patriotism, it is a thing which can be carried to exaggerated lengths and as a form of paying tribute to those who have rendered service to the nation it can assume ridiculous proportions.
 * James Everett: To delete sub-section (1), and insert in lieu thereof the following sub-section:—
 * (1) The appropriate authority may, by a majority decision of the members present at a meeting called for that purpose, change the name of a street.
 * If the elected representatives decide by a majority that the name of a street should be changed their decision should be final. I have in mind what happened in the case of a particular street in Dublin. If it was proposed to change a name, say, from Grafton Street to an Irish name, a majority would not be got to agree in that area. If it was decided to change a name to Montgomery Street or some other name that is at present familiar to the public, a majority of the ratepayers would be got, although the elected representatives would not agree. In view of what may happen in future years, when we may wish to honour the memory of Irish patriots, and change the foreign names on some of our streets, I think the elected representatives, whoever they may be, should have the right to do so, and not have it dependent on the decisions of residents of streets like Grafton Street.
 * MacEntee: If any of us called our house "Victoria House" or "Cambridge House" or "Wellington House", we would think it an infringement of our liberties if somebody came along and said that we ought to call it "Home Rule House" or something else. Even though we do not agree with the point of view of those who have an interest in the existing situation, even though we might say: "The street belongs to the city more than to the people who reside in it"—which I think is a very questionable position—even though we may say that patriotism should come first and business afterwards, nevertheless, we should bear in mind that our problem is to try to assure the minority here that so long as they are citizens of this State such rights as they may have and, indeed, such sentiments as they may feel, will secure adequate respect from the majority here. For that reason, therefore, I would be very strongly opposed to the proposal of Deputy Everett to make a change of name at the instance merely of the majority of the local authority. I think the ratepayers in the street who own the property and occupy it have a right to be consulted and I think we should, so far as it is reasonable, try to meet their wishes. I think we should ensure, in whatever changes we may now make, that there will be a reasonable majority for a change. If you do not do that the ridiculous situation which has developed in some parts of the Continent may spring up here, where one year you have a street called "President Wilson Street" and, a few years later, called "Petain" or something like that, and later called something else. We do not want that. Once we make up our minds to have it changed we want the change, whatever it may be, to continue to abide for all time.
 * Richard Sidney Anthony: I am opposing this amendment by Deputy Everett, because I have had experience in Cork quite recently of an attempt to change the names of a number of streets. In the case of the South Mall in Cork City, one of the best business thoroughfares in the South of Ireland, it was sought to change the name. Those engaged in some of the business offices and others in residential premises on the South Mall objected to the change. Surely we are not to take away the rights of the citizens who pay rates to the corporation and who have vested interests in the name of the street? Surely the trader or occupier has the right to object and retain the old name? I would object to having a place known as Cromwell Avenue and agree that some objectionable names might be removed, for very good reasons, but I am altogether opposed to the principle behind this amendment, which suggests that the local body alone should have such powers. We know that, from time to time, some most undesirable people get into local councils. We have had that experience in Cork City—I do not hesitate to say it—and if we are going to allow even the elected representatives of the people to change the names of streets, it will have a most injurious effect on businesses in most cases.
 * Patrick Cogan's secret-ballot amendment withdrawn
 * Denis Allen wants power to apply to townlands; minister will think about it
 * repeal power in local acts of corporations to rename streets
 * Minister inserts section for municipal towns ["Attempts have been made to change the names of towns in a rather irregular way."] and townlands ["This will enable Newtownbarry to become Bunclody. I do not see Deputy Allen here to celebrate his victory."]
 * MAcEntee: That is a point which is sometimes overlooked. The point raised here is somewhat difficult. I do not know whether the name of the park is one which has any legal significance. It is merely a popular description of the district, it will be necessary to change it by usage. If, on the other hand, it is a name of which official notice is taken in some official State document, I confess that there is no provision in this Bill, or, so far as I know, in the law, for the changing of the name of a district inside an urban area as distinct from changing the name of a street. If the district were outside the urban area, we could I think, follow the procedure in amendment No. 26—if, for instance, it were a townland—but I must say that this point has never arisen before and I have not adverted to it.
 * MacEntee: Sections 74, 75 and 76 deal with the changing of names of towns, townlands and streets. Senators may be aware, from certain recent discussions, that the existing law is in many respects unsatisfactory. There is power to alter certain place names but no power to alter others. Some authorities have, in fact, passed resolutions purporting to alter names and these resolutions, having no legal sanction, had not the effect intended. This has created some confusion in many cases, as both the old name and new name are in use. In fact, I have been told of places where the local authorities adhere to the old name, while strangers and people outside the area use the new name. Sections 74 to 76 provide a clear procedure which will ensure that alteration shall be made only after full deliberation and after the wishes of the people in the area have been properly ascertained. Provision is also made for consultation with authorities who have specially studied the subject of place names. In regard to street names the general law at present is that the consent of two-thirds of the ratepayers and valuation of the street is necessary before the name can be changed. It is proposed that henceforth this change can be made with the consent of four-sevenths of the ratepayers only. It will not be necessary to consider the valuations.
 * Michael Hayes: There is one other point to which I would like to allude. The Bill contains a provision, one which I agree entirely with the Minister was necessary, whereby place-names or street names can be changed. Speaking on the Second Stage of the Bill, the Minister mentioned this new proposal, and my view is that it should be made as difficult as possible to change a name. I am not a member of the old ascendancy by any means, but I recognise that in this country we have a history, a chequered history, which involves a great many difficult strains, and I would like to make it as difficult as possible to change a name.
 * I agree entirely with the provision of the Bill which provides that if you are going to change a name you must apply to the Minister, and it must be sanctioned from Dublin. All this business of place-names is a difficult one. People will tell you facilely what the old Irish place-names were, but the more one knows of local history and the language, the more one appreciates history, and how very hard it is to get the right Irish name. The Minister is quite right in providing that applications must be made to people who have special skill and knowledge. I feel that it is time that something was done in that direction in this highly difficult matter. The same applies to changing the names of streets. It is proposed that four-sevenths of the residents should desire the change. I think the original Bill provided for two-thirds.
 * I am so much against the casual changing of names that I would nearly make it three-fourths. I think the whole urge towards name-changing is simply a form of cheap and very impractical nationalism. There are people who never learned a word of Irish in their lives, and if they heard a word of Irish could not pronounce it correctly after they were told, who want to change names. I am a Dublin man and I would hate anybody to change the name of Grafton Street to anything else. I had acquaintance with some of our honoured dead, and I would prefer that the ancient names of Dublin were left alone. After all, these names are part of our history and they should give us pause now and again. You can march an Irish army down Grafton Street: that is a sign of freedom which is much better than changing the name. If you want to honour the dead, you can do it in a more practical fashion. They built a magnificent avenue on the north side of the city, Griffith Avenue.
 * That seems to be the way we should work rather than go in for an orgy of changing names. Therefore, I would like to make it as difficult as possible to change names and I would like the Minister to go back to his own proposal in the Bill that there should be a two-thirds majority.
 * Hayes: In the first place, I should say that I feel that there is need in many cases for changing a name, but that change of name should not be easily effected. When you change a name place it is very difficult to ascertain what the correct Irish name is. There is one section for having that properly explored before the new name is officially adopted. The Bill, as originally introduced, provided that two-thirds of the ratepayers in a district or two-thirds of the people in a street should consent before there was a change of name. In the Dáil, the Minister was urged to make it a simple majority. I urge that it should be restored to two-thirds. People who want to make a change of that kind should have as big a majority as possible, because I feel that it is one of the easy, facile tokens of nationalism to proceed to change a particular name that has been there for a long time, into another name which may seem to be more patriotic but which, in fact, may not be very sound at all from historical and other reasons. For example, the change from Donegal to Tír Conaill is not historical, and the change from Queen's County to Leix or King's County to Offaly does not in fact correspond with the ancient divisions of the country.
 * If the matter is given mature consideration, Senators will realise that the older counties did not correspond with previous divisions of the country. I give that as an example to show how difficult the position is. I feel that two-thirds majority is better than simple majority, and better than four-sevenths. If that was the Minister's original idea he should stick to it. Has the Minister any power to determine what the new name is? He has in Section 75, I know, but has he under Section 74?
 * On other occasions I have objected to powers being conferred on the Government but in this case I am rather in favour of it. This is a very difficult matter and one which requires a considerable amount of research, scholarship, and consultation with more than one person to determine what the proper name should be. I am, therefore, fully in agreement with the idea of not allowing the people or the urban district council to decide as to the name which should be given to the town. I would like to hear the Minister on the question of two-thirds and four-sevenths. I am in favour of the former myself because I feel that the change over should be made difficult rather than easy. Too hasty action in a matter like this is apt to be somewhat misguided and people sometimes regret subsequently a too rapid success.
 * Pádraig Ó Shiochfhradha: Ní fhéadfainnse a shamhlú gur "new name" Cluain Meala. Sé Clonmel an ainm nua, má tá aon nuachas i gceist.
 * Má tá an leagan Gaeilge do áit-ainm i gceist in Altanna 74 agus 75 sa Bhille seo—pé acu ainmneacha a bhfuil iarracht foghraíochta ina litrú ina bhfuirm Béarla, ar nós Clonmel ar Chluain Meala, Dunquin ar Dhún Chaoin, Fethard ar Fíodh Árd agus an rud gránna Offaly ar Uí Failghe; nó más ainm go bhfuil iarracht ar aistriú-chán air, cuir i gcás, Mounteagle ar Shléibh an Fhiolair, Flemingstown ar Bhaile an Phléimeannaigh, Barley-mount ar Chnoc na hEorna, Rockfield ar Ghort na Chloiche; nó a saghas eile arís, ná fuil aon ghaol idir an ainm Ghallda agus an ainm dúchais, .i. West-port ar Chathair na Mart, Waterford ar Phortláirge, Burnham ar Bhaile a Ghoilín, Waterville ar an gCoireán—an measfar, i bhfeidhmiú na nAlt so, gur "new name" na leaganacha Gaeilge agus an measfar gur "change of name" na fíor-ainmneacha Gaeilge sin á chur in úsáid, má thogrann údarás áitiúil sa Ghaeltacht—nó sa bhreac-Ghaeltacht —glacadh leo agus iad d'úsáid go h-Oifigiúil.
 * Pádraig Ó Shiochfhradha: It would appear from our examination of this matter so far that what is most in the minds of the people as being involved is the Irish language form of place-names as distinct from the English official, bowdlerised form of place names all over the country. I am not concerned about street names. In referring to this, my purpose is to get information and to find out from An tAire whether it is contemplated that the Irish language form of place names, which place names and which form are in 95 or 98 cases out of 100 the correct historical, topographical, philological form of the names, is involved in this question of getting the sanction of four-sevenths, plus one, of the people to agree that they should be used. That is the matter on which I should like to get information from the Minister so that our discussion might be clearer. What I want to avoid is there being any new legislation which would put a difficulty in the way of bringing these place names into official use, a thing which should have been done 25 years ago, if we had the courage or the foresight to tackle the matter then. It is time that we did it and we should not involve ourselves in legislation which will put difficulties in the way.
 * MacEntee: It is difficult for me to answer that question without considerable reservations. I am asked whether the mere adoption of the Irish form of names of an urban district or town would constitute a change of name. As the section stands, I think it does not prescribe that an adoption in that form would constitute a change. On the other hand, if the section came to be interpreted by the courts. I do not know what the courts would say, because a question might arise as to whether the Irish form of the name which it was proposed to adopt was in fact the equivalent of the English form of the name. As the matter stands, however, I think it is reasonable to assume that the English form of the name in most cases has official status, except where in an official document there appears the corresponding Irish form for the English form of the name of the town. I think in most legal documents, particularly documents affecting title, you will find that it is the English form of the name that is used.
 * This section has not been brought in to make it more difficult to change the names of the towns from the English to the Irish form or from the existing English name to the original Irish name. But it has been brought in to ensure that the change will be effective in every sphere in our legal and commercial life, and, to the extent to which we can make it effective, in our social life. It has also been brought in to ensure that when the existing English forms have been given the old Irish equivalent or have been abandoned altogether in favour of the Irish names, the change will not lead to needless litigation and considerable loss and, perhaps, a great deal of embitterment as between one citizen and another.
 * This is not an easy matter to deal with. We cannot assume that a name may be changed effectively by mere usage, for the name which has been in prior use has secured a legal significance in a very widespread way. And I am not sure that if we allowed a name to be changed merely at the instance of a particular group of people, who did not themselves constitute the majority of the people who would be immediately affected by the change, the change would be an effective one. I understand there are some places in Ireland where, for instance, the names were changed by local authorities, local councils, many years ago, and where the English form of the name is the one customarily used by the inhabitants of the town, and it is not much use in trying to bring about these changes if we allow, as the Taoiseach said on one historic occasion, the engine to run away from the train.
 * Those who are interested—and I am interested; I would not have taken the trouble to try to work out this procedure if I were not keenly interested — in bringing about this change, would very usefully employ themselves, I think, and would do a great deal of very useful work for the language and from a propaganda point of view, if they set themselves the task, where it is proposed to use an Irish name or an Irish equivalent for a town, of securing the assent of the required majority, four-sevenths of the inhabitants of the particular place, for the change. This is not a simple question, and I should certainly hesitate—in fact, I would go to the point almost of refusing—to say that I would be prepared to provide that in all circumstances the courts should hold that the adoption, by popular usage and without going through this machinery, of an Irish form of the name of a town was an effective change of name.
 * ... if I really want to have this thing done effectually, I should approach it from the point of view that when the name of a place is to be changed it must be done formally and officially.
 * [further discussion on Irish language policy and legal technicalities]
 * Section 77 to change name of "locality" added.
 * Dáil agrees to Section 77 added by Seanad


 * Frank Feighan To ask the Minister for Housing, Planning, and Local Government when legislation will be in place to enable local communities such as Enniscrone, County Sligo to hold local plebiscites to change the spelling of its place name; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4415/20]
 * John Paul Phelan Following the enactment of the Local Government Act 2019, provisions under Part 18 of the amended Local Government Act 2001, relating to the changing of names of areas, have been commenced and previous provisions, relating to place-name changes, under the Local Government Acts 1946 and 1953, have been repealed.
 * The commencement of the provisions in the Local Government Act 2001, as amended, now allows for new regulations to be made to provide for the holding of local plebiscites for the purpose of changing place-names. However, it is important to ensure that the provisions of the 2001 Act and provisions relating to place-names under Part 5 of the Official Languages Act 2003, which is under the remit of my colleague, the Minister for Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, operate effectively together. Accordingly, my Department is engaging with the Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht on this matter and seeking legal advice, on foot of which the matter will be considered further.


 * Frank Feighan We have an issue with the spelling of Enniscrone, whether it is I-N-I-S-H-C-R-O-N-E or E-N-N-I-S-C-R-O-N-E. It has become a huge issue in towns and villages across the country. We did not think it was such an issue but everywhere we go we put our destination into Google maps and this issue is causing serious damage in terms of tourists, businesses and people going to the town. We have the Irish spelling, which 95% of the people do not recognise and want to change. We had a meeting attended by more than 700 or 800 people. We also had a very productive meeting with the Minister of State but the people want to have a plebiscite. I have said previously that there is a type of turf war going on between the Gaeltacht and the non-Gaeltacht Departments. We were very close to getting legislation in place until the Government fell. Can the Minister of State outline the position on that legislation? Will this issue get top priority if a new Government is formed? The issue with the placename is causing a great deal of confusion and people cannot understand why it cannot be changed and have the Departments come together to try to address this issue once and for all. It is not just an issue for Enniscrone. There are many towns and villages throughout this country dealing with a similar issue. We had it years ago with An Daingean-Dingle. People simply cannot understand that it takes so long and so much legislation to deal with it. I am aware it has to go through a plebiscite in terms of the local authority but can the Minister of State inform me of the current position on this very interesting situation?
 * John Paul Phelan On the age-old issue of Inishcrone, as the Deputy will be aware, the Local Government Act which passed the Houses last year drew up the criteria under which a plebiscite could be held. We had plebiscites on the issue of directly-elected mayors in three local authority areas. That would also work in the case of a naming issue, such as Inishcrone. In this particular situation, there is a conflict between legislation, in that the official languages legislation falls under the Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. I will endeavour to get an update and response from it about where it stands with the review of that legislation and ensuring the plebiscite can be put to the people of Inishcrone about the spelling they wish for their town.

Spelling
Why did Laoighis become Laois but Dún Laoghaire not become Dún Laoire? Was it Fianna Fáil?

Miscellaneous notes
Geographical Journal 1941 mentions Kingwilliamstown, Edgeworthstown, Mountcharles, and Binghamstown, all with Irish renames, with Ballydesmond and Tantallon but not Mostrim as anglicised aliases. Likewise gives Uí Fáilghe over Offaly.


 * 1944 plebiscite to rename Talbot Street after Sean Treacy failed (also to rename North Earl St, new name not given).TPL 1944/1007/Pg010
 * Local Government Act 1946 (Amendment) Bill 1950 proposed changing ratepayers to electors; debate mentioned previous instances including Bunclody. Bill defeated
 * 1965 plebiscite to rename Killarney streets failed (13 for, 13 against, 5 abstained).
 * 1967 plebiscite rename Westmoreland Street "President Kennedy Street" IT 1967/0207/Pg008

https://amp.irishexaminer.com/ireland/vote-needed-to-change-nra-spelling-of-towns-in-clare-386752.html 2016 N67 Ballyvaughan, Ennistymon, and Lahinch being changed to read Ballyvaghan, Ennistimon and Lehinch.

Local Government Act 1946>SIs made under the Act > ss76-79 gives regulations and all change orders

2020 Anglesea Street "because there is just one person living on Anglesea Street, a plebiscite was not needed".

IT enniscrone-or-inishcrone Easkey, Ballysadare and Tobercurry

Garrison names: the politics of Irish street names 1941 Cork council prepared long list for renaming but never proceeded as ratepayers' consent unlikely. Note also Coburg Street in Irish is Sráid Uí h-Uigín – a reddit post suggests Bernardo O'Higgins, but I would guess Kevin O'Higgins. However askaboutireland bilingual-list has "Coburg Street — Sráid Coburg".

Wexford streets
Wexford Borough Council 2 December 1929:
 * Councillor Clancy called attention to the fact that the names of the eighteen streets altered in 1920 were not designated by these names in the Local Register of Electors, and wished that steps should be taken to compel this to be done in future years. It was explained that the alterations were not carried out in a legal manner, as no attention whatever had been paid to the requirements of part 2 of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1907, which, so far, was not in force in Wexford, and that the change of name would not become effective until the terms of Section 21 of that Statute were complied with.

There was a plebiscite in 1932 to change them, but Hall's Pictorial Weekly in 1971 reported locals mainly used the old names.