I often see this statement mentioned, usually in relation to how big of a deal the 1916 Rising was, and how major the British shelling of the city was. However, was Dublin truly considered a more important city than any on Great Britain itself (after London)? I've also noticed that it's usually Irish historians saying this, so I was wondering if it's an accurate statement. Thanks!
Well, it's something of a rhetorical claim but, while Dublin was an important imperial city, it wouldn't have had so much substance behind it by 1916. In terms of population, at that time, the second city of the empire would have been Calcutta. The first reference to Dublin occupying this position which I can find would seem to emanate from Dublin Corporation in 1813 which sought the right to present a petition to the bar of Westminster (a right reserved solely to London corporation then). In the letter from Dublin's Lord Mayor seeking this privilege, he referred to the petition as coming from the 'second corporation of the empire'. Henry Grattan, who at this time represented Dublin City in the House of Commons, in a short speech supporting the right of Dublin City to present such petition, referred to the city as 'the second city of the empire'.
In support of this claim, Dublin had been the empire's first oversea's capital. Following the Act of Union of 1801, Dublin, the 'deposed' capital of Ireland, was the second largest city in both the UK and the British Empire. After the union, it's rate of growth slowed and neither claim could have been upheld by the early 20th century. It was different to a lot of provincial cities in the UK, however, in the range of administrative and commercial functions which it enjoyed.