2. Isaac Butt. Chapter one. The tragedy of Home Rule.
Isaac Butt and Home Rule
Isaac Butt was born in September 1813 in Co. Donegal. He trained as a barrister and became a member of both the Irish and English bar. He was a noted conservative lawyer but after the famine of the 1840’s he became increasingly liberal. He defended participants in the young Ireland revolt (1848). He entered parliament as a liberal conservative in 1852 and managed to become deeply in debt. He defended Fenians after the revolt of 1867 and led the Amnesty Association that campaigned for their release. In 1869 he founded the Tenant League to renew the demand for tenant right.
Federalism was the political policy favoured by Butt as the solution to Irish political and economical problems. Butt proposed that a separate Irish parliament be set up in Dublin to control domestic affairs. There was no question of Ireland leaving the British Empire and Irish MPs would continue to sit at Westminster. In May 1870 a meeting was called to organise a new body that would try to win support for the idea of an Irish parliament. As a result the Home Government Association was formed as a constitutional movement to campaign for this cause. It attracted a wide range of views (including Protestants, Catholics, landlords, tenants and Fenians) that contrasted with each other. This movement would dominate Irish politics for most of the next fifty years.
The early years, 1870-1873, saw only limited growth for the movement. This was because Butt’s original intention was that the association would be a pressure group rather than a political party. Also Butt did not attempt to link Home Rule with other issues such as land reform and the Catholic Church was suspicious of the movement...
... middle of paper ...
...to stay in power.
How does Home Rule fit into the wider British context?
Home Rule was an extremely important concept in the British Empire in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. To fully appreciate its significance, it must be viewed in an imperial rather than a purely Irish concept. Before the outbreak of the First World War, the nature of government in the British Empire was changing. Greater independence and forms of domestic governance were granted to Canada, Australia, and South Africa in 1867, 1900, and 1909 respectively. Thus, Britain can be seen to have been gradually liberalising its system of imperial governance, at least for ‘civilised’ components of the empire. This contrasts starkly with the disorderly and chaotic nature of de-colonisation that was experienced by Britain, France, and other European powers following the Second World War.
The failure of the home rule bill in 1886 was due, to a large extent, to the tactical mistakes made by gladstone, such as the failure to unite his party and his underestimation of conservative opposition towards the bill. However, it could also be argued that other factors, such as the sectarian nature of Irish society and subsequent opposition in Ulster also played a major role in the failure of the Home Rule Bill and thus inevitable regardless of Gladstone’s actions.
Expanding on the notion of moral regulation evolution, Hunt makes note of shifts in civil associations and their approaches to regulating morals between the 18th and 19th centuries. Hunt speaks of the Societies for the Reformation of Matters, its successor – the Vice Society, in chapter two, and the Female Moral Reform Society and the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union in chapter three. In brief, moral regulation projects shifted from simply enforcing the laws in place at the time, to working alongside the state, to going back to civil matters but this time adding women into the social sphere, and rescuing and aiding immoral actors instead of punishing them. The Societies for Reformation of Matters existed to enforce laws which were in place, while its successor had more on its agenda. Comparing the two organizations shows that although they shared similar fundamental visions and motives at first, the Vice Society evolved into something much larger a...
While some citizens of the United States, between 1825 and 1850, believed that reform was foolish and that the nation should stick to its old conduct, reformists in this time period still sought to make the United States a more ideally democratic nation. This was an age of nationalism and pride, and where there was pride in one’s country, there was the aspiration to improve one’s country even further. Many new reformist and abolitionist groups began to form, all attempting to change aspects of the United States that the respective groups thought to be unfair or unjust. Some groups, such as lower and middle class women and immigrants, sought to improve rights within the county, while other reformers aspired to change the American education system into a more efficient way of teaching the county’s youth. Still other reform groups, particularly involved in the church and the second great awakening, wanted to change society as a whole. This was a time and age of change, and all these reforms were intended to contribute to the democratic way our country operated.
When examining the bloody and often tumultuous history of Great Britain prior to their ascent to power, one would not have predicted that they would become the global leader of the 18th century. Prior to the Treaty of Westphalia, which ended the Thirty Years War, the Spanish and the Holy Roman Empire held much of the power in Europe. Only with the suppression of Catholicism and the development of national sovereignty did Great Britain have the opportunity to rise through the ranks. While much of continental Europe was seeking to strengthen their absolute monarchies and centralized style of governing, in the 17th and 18th centuries Great Britain was making significant political changes that reflected the ideals of the Age of Enlightenment. The first of the political philosophers was Thomas Hobbes who first introduced the idea that the monarch ruled not by “divine right” but through the consent of the people. This was a radical idea with ramifications that are reflected in the great changed Great Britain made to to their government in the 17th century. Through a series of two violent civil wars between the monarchy and Parliament and the bloodless civil war known as the Glorious Revolution, Parliament was granted the authority to, in essence, “check” the power of the monarchy. The internal shifts of power in Great Britain and the savvy foreign policy skills demonstrated by the British in much of the conflict happening in continental Europe can be credited with England’s rise to power.
The Act of Union in 1800 was a significant factor to the nature of Irish nationalism in 1800. Prior to the Act, the society of the united Irishmen, a republican society who wanted parliamentary reform and Catholic Emancipation, fought, under the leadership of Robert Emmet, with physical force for their complete independence. Because of their military strand they differed from their predecessors the ‘Protestant Patriots’, this is because the society was heavily influenced by revolutionary events in France and New America in the late 18th century. The rebellion, although unsuccessful, with its leader imprisoned, had major consequential effects; which was the passing of the Act of Union in 1800. The Act set the tone for the rest of Irish history; once emancipation failed to materialize directly after the union, the Catholic issue began to dominate both Irish and English politics.
Tyranny, according to the Oxford Dictionary, is “cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control.” Many Americans saw British policy during the late 18th century to be highly tyrannical. But many of them failed to acknowledge the presence of previous policies that the ones they were aware of actually replaced. Ensuring that previously instituted policies are enforced cannot be considered tyrannical. I agree with this view, and this essay will serve to prove that British policy was in fact reformist rather than tyrannical in the 1760’s and early 1770’s.
were for non-conformity and individualism. They were very much concerned with the growth of the individual, whether it be in mind or through the soul.
Gray, Peter. Famine, Land, and Politics: British Government and Irish Society. Dublin: Irish Academic Press, 1999.
Fenian Movement, which was organized 1858, started as a secret revolutionary society in Ireland and the United States. This movement was created in the honor of the Fianna, known as the ancient Irish warriors. Fenians wanted to achieve Irish Independence from England by force. This movement was also known as the Fenian Brotherhood, Fenian Society, Irish Republican Brotherhood, and Irish American Brotherhood. The Fenians also had a very strong military force located in Ireland. The reason for a strong army in the society was to gain independence from England. This movement was led by James Stephens from 1825 to 1901. He founded the party, the Irish People, in Dublin 1863. The Fenian Movement mostly appeals to the artisans and agrarians (REF). The reason for this was that the agrarians and artisans were the oppressed class in this society. With their support the Fenian army was going to be stronger and successful. In their voyage things weren't easy because of the fact that the Church and the Government (the biggest two powers in this society) were as against this movement. The independence of the Fenians was going to bring them a loss of power. As a result, the church and the government were against their desire of leaving England and becoming independent.
As a result, the famine is an event still discussed and debated today; influencing Irish politics and its position within the British Isles. Questions about morality and blame have led to historians to attempt to critique British and Irish response during the famine, whilst cataloging the short term and long-term consequences. Although most blame is primarily placed on the regional and national governments response to the famine crisis, the actions of the State do not provide an adequate analysis of early nineteenth century social structures which would shape Ireland both economically, socially and politically in the years before the famine. The establishment of the Union in 1801 led to a free market system and s...
The Irish Home Rule Bill is actually four different home rule bills proposed at different times to the British Parliament between 1886 and 1920. The First Home Rule Bill is the common name of The Government of Ireland Bill 1886. The Prime Minister of England, William Gladstone, offered the bill to the British Parliament on April 8, 1886. The bill had three key points to change the government in Ireland. The first was in legislative and called for a group of Irish representatives to propose and make laws. The second was in executive power. It plan...
On the 14th of September in the year 1607 the Earl of Tyrone Hugh O’Neill and the Earl of Tyrconnel Rory O’Donnell fled Ireland alongside officials, their families and numerous Gaelic chieftains. They left Ireland from Rathmullen in County Donegal. This flee was to become known as the flight of the Earls. They arrived in the Spanish Netherlands and then eventually made their way to Rome. The Flight of the Earls led to the most drastic form of the British government’s policy of plantation in Ireland. The Flight of the Earls has remained as one of the most memorable events in the history of Ireland. But what exactly were the reasons for the Flight of the Earls? The causes have been debated by historians with different interpretations as to why they fled but it is clear that the influence of the Earls in Ireland have been diminished greatly in the years prior to the Flight of the Earls. This essay seeks to clarify the reasons for the decline in power of the Earls in Ireland through exploration of the solidification of British rule in Ireland, along with key events in the years prior to the Flight of the Earls such as Hugh O’Neill’s campaign and onto the nine years war and the Battle of Kinsale and the Treaty of Mellifont after the Battle of Kinsale.
Spanning “over a fifth of the world’s land surface” and the governance of 458 million people at its peak, the British Empire came to bear the name of the “vast empire on which the sun never sets.” At the time of writing this in 1773, Macartney, a British statesman and colonial administrator, also asserted that the Empire’s “bounds nature has not yet ascertained.” When considering the significance of the Palace of Westminster, London in British imperial history, this statement could not ring truer. The House of Commons and the House of Lords meet within the Palace of Westminster, and it was within these democratic buildings that many of the most controversial aspects of the Empire were decided, discussed and debated. Whether this be over topics
During the time of England’s dominance of Ireland, the citizens of Ireland desperately sought to be free of England’s rule. Because of Ireland’s longing, the Home Rule Movement (HRM) came into existence. In Irish and English history, Home Rule is defined as a political slogan adopted by Irish nationalist in the 19th century to describe their objective of self-government for Ireland (“Home Rule”). The Home Rule Movement started in 1870 and ended in 1922. Isaac Butt and Charles Parnell led the movement (Home Rule). Because the Irish were insistence in obtaining their freedom, the Home Rule movement caused the following events to occur: The Easter Uprising, an increase in attendance of the Irish Republic Treaty (IRA), the founding of the Sinn Fein, and the Irish Free State. During the HRM, three Home Rule bills were produced and promptly rejected. Ultimately, the fourth Home Rule Bill ended in victory in 1922 (“Home Rule”).
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (London: 2005). pp. 51, 71-72. Accessed May 3, 2014. http://www.jhud.co.uk/huddleston/uk2005_tcm77-248610.pdf.