Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

DeValera Megathread

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    This was a strange aspect of the bill- These restrictions essentially meant that Britain had to subsidise Ireland as spending was above income. I know there was alot of contentious points in the bill but the biggest question would seem to be could it have been used in the same way as free state status was; enough freedom to achieve freedom, but with a means to avoiding permanent partition?

    There was to be total control over finances -

    The proceeds of all taxes levied in Ireland, whether under the authority of the parliament of the United Kingdom or of the Irish parliament, shall be paid into the exchequer of the United Kingdom “ -
    and then the act provided for some unspecified sum that would be paid out of the British exchequer into Ireland. There was a long history of imbalance in favour of Westminster in this arrangement – going back to Edward II’s Scottish wars when the Irish almost went broke subsidizing him. Do we even need to mention the Poor Law Extension Act of 1847 - still within living memory of this bill - which denied any UK government aid to Ireland and sent thousands to their deaths?


    But most significantly the Irish parliament was denied the power to alter anything in the bill in any future date – so the stepping stone would have had to go through Westminster, good luck with that one.

    The Irish Parliament shall not have power to repeal or alter any provision of this act…or of any act passed by the parliament of the United Kingdom after the passing of this act and extending to Ireland.


    Considering that Carson had already made belligerent statements that the Act did most certainly not apply to Ulster –and Ulster had armed with the intention of breaking the bill [with the expressed and material support of the English Conservative Party] , and the British army had refused to march against the UDF – and that the ‘Irish parliament’ so established could do nothing in its own defence, it didn’t appear to be much of an “independence” bill.


  • Options
    #63
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    This was a strange aspect of the bill- These restrictions essentially meant that Britain had to subsidise Ireland as spending was above income. I know there was alot of contentious points in the bill but the biggest question would seem to be could it have been used in the same way as free state status was; enough freedom to achieve freedom, but with a means to avoiding permanent partition?
    MarchDub wrote: »
    There was to be total control over finances -

    The proceeds of all taxes levied in Ireland, whether under the authority of the parliament of the United Kingdom or of the Irish parliament, shall be paid into the exchequer of the United Kingdom “ -
    . Do we even need to mention the Poor Law Extension Act of 1847 - still within living memory of this bill - which denied any UK government aid to Ireland and sent thousands to their deaths?


    But most significantly the Irish parliament was denied the power to alter anything in the bill in any future date – so the stepping stone would have had to go through Westminster, good luck with that one.

    The Irish Parliament shall not have power to repeal or alter any provision of this act…or of any act passed by the parliament of the United Kingdom after the passing of this act and extending to Ireland.

    A good solid argument -if I may say MD.

    I remember finding something on spending & taxes revenue from this period.

    Was Ireland's taxes in surplus - remind me.

    Considering that Carson had already made belligerent statements that the Act did most certainly not apply to Ulster –and Ulster had armed with the intention of breaking the bill [with the expressed and material support of the English Conservative Party] , and the British army had refused to march against the UDF – and that the ‘Irish parliament’ so established could do nothing in its own defence, it didn’t appear to be much of an “independence” bill.

    So politically & practically the British Establishment had difficulty delivering the limited version of "self rule" it promised.

    Bearing in mind the Irish Establishment -public servants & police & army came from the ruling classes how big a deal was this.

    What I am trying to see is was DeV saying "HR is a spin " and what was his approach to parts of the treaty.

    The country was not a democracy and the powers that be could not be voted out - a bit like today - you cant vote out civil servants no matter how poor they are.

    So other than partition - what were his treaty objections ??


  • Options
    #64
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    brianthebard wrote: »
    For most of the 19th century Ireland gave Britain more wealth than it received back in investment, etc. However for a short period before independence with the arrival of oap and other things Ireland was actually receiving slightly more than it gave Britain I believe. So I don't think it would have been cost neutral tbh.


    Some pre & post independence economics here

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056106793


  • Options
    #65
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    MarchDub wrote: »
    But most significantly the Irish parliament was denied the power to alter anything in the bill in any future date – so the stepping stone would have had to go through Westminster, good luck with that one.

    The Irish Parliament shall not have power to repeal or alter any provision of this act…or of any act passed by the parliament of the United Kingdom after the passing of this act and extending to Ireland.
    .

    Then home rule would be considerably less than dominion status.
    MarchDub wrote: »
    There was to be total control over finances -

    The proceeds of all taxes levied in Ireland, whether under the authority of the parliament of the United Kingdom or of the Irish parliament, shall be paid into the exchequer of the United Kingdom “ -
    and then the act provided for some unspecified sum that would be paid out of the British exchequer into Ireland. There was a long history of imbalance in favour of Westminster in this arrangement – going back to Edward II’s Scottish wars when the Irish almost went broke subsidizing him. Do we even need to mention the Poor Law Extension Act of 1847 - still within living memory of this bill - which denied any UK government aid to Ireland and sent thousands to their deaths?
    .

    The point I made is that the sum to be paid out by the British excheqeur would be more than than taken in. At some stage between 1895 and 1912 Britain stopped gaining financially from Ireland- this I presuume was down to congested district board improvements and moreso land purchase arrangements.
    The facts collected in that Report and other figures, which will be circulated in a White Paper with the Bill after the Bill is introduced, show, in short, that while in 1895–6 the true Irish revenue in round figures was £8,000,000, and the actual local expenditure on Irish service was about £6,000,000, the former—that is, the true Irish revenue—has risen, according to our estimate for the coming financial year, 1912–13, to about £10,840,000, and the expenditure on Irish services to about £12,350,000. In other words, the surplus of £2,000,000 has been turned into a deficit, which will in all probability next year amount to about £1,500,000.
    British PM statement form House of commons debate on financial issues in relation to home rule - http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1912/apr/11/financial-arrangements

    Reasons are given for this rise in expenditure in the PM's address which also seems to advise that the deficit will rise in the future. This is also from same debate on 3rd home rule bill:
    To what is that increase to be attributed? The answer is: To three distinct causes. In the first place, to new Irish requirements which have made successful appeals to the Imperial Exchequer. Under that head fall Land Purchase, the Department of Agriculture, and the much larger provision for national education. That is the first reason.

    The second head is the Development Grant, which is due to the application of the theory of what is called Equivalent Grants. When a new Grant is made to England, Scotland and Ireland at once step in and claim an equivalent whether they need it or not. The third head—and by far the larger part of the whole—some £3,000,000—may be put down to Old Age Pensions, National Insurance, Labour Exchanges, and Postal Services. I need not point out that under the existing system it is no one's interest to be economical, and, on the other hand, it is to everyone's interest to make fresh and growing demands upon the Imperial Exchequer. A poor country, mainly agricultural, is, for financial purposes, yoked with a rich country, mainly industrial, and the standard and scale of financial provision suitable to England has been necessarily, and almost automatically, applied to Ireland. That is conspicuously the case in regard to Old Age Pensions and Postal Services.

    In this way, as I have said, a surplus of £2,000,000 has been converted into a large deficit. But let no one suppose that we have reached the end of the process. The charges under the Land Purchase and the Insurance Acts will increase year by year to a greater extent than those for Old Age Pensions will diminish, and if you continue the present system, you will have to add to the deficit year by year.


  • Options
    #66
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    The point I made is that the sum to be paid out by the British excheqeur would be more than than taken in. At some stage between 1895 and 1912 Britain stopped gaining financially from Ireland- this I presuume was down to congested district board improvements and moreso land purchase arrangements.

    There was absolutely nothing in the HR document to indicate that in the future the old familiar imbalance in fiances would not be the order of the day and Ireland would pay for their wars for example. The Home Rule bill of 1914 was an open invitation for Westminster to take what they wanted - which was the total taxation taken in Ireland - and then decide what they wanted to dispense back.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    MarchDub wrote: »
    There was absolutely nothing in the HR document to indicate that in the future the old familiar imbalance in fiances would not be the order of the day and Ireland would pay for their wars for example. The Home Rule bill of 1914 was an open invitation for Westminster to take what they wanted - which was the total taxation taken in Ireland - and then decide what they wanted to dispense back.

    You are correct in this, there was no protection for Ireland in this bill. The pattern though as per my previous post suggested that the British seemed to accept that they would have a deficit for the forseeable future, i.e. a net expenditure rather than gain for Britain. I agree that it is hard not to be cynical in this regard but there is no evidence that Asquiths opinion was not genuine in 1912. On the contrary he stated that the deficit would rise.


  • Options
    #68
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    By the way - the period from the 1890s where the British government put money into Ireland was known amongst nationalists as the "Killing Home Rule with Kindness" policy.


  • Options
    #69
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    MarchDub wrote: »
    By the way - the period from the 1890s where the British government put money into Ireland was known amongst nationalists as the "Killing Home Rule with Kindness" policy.

    OK MD - we had a situation where the HR Party was the dominant political force until 1916.

    Local politics was a real force. Willie Cosgrave was a Dublin Corporation Member for Sinn Fein pre WWI and also was a volunteer and had his death sentence commuted in 1916.

    Sinn Fein kind of found itself thrust into the position as political representatives of the rising. Is it true to say no-one really heard of them before that.

    The Labour Party was a force and despite its involvement was fairly sidelined.

    So how could Cosgrave accept the treaty and DeValera not ?

    What seperated the treaty parties ? Personalities and competing for power or particular articles of the treaty or partition ?

    Financially, the OAP and unemployment benefit etc were a lot more than killing home rule with kindness.

    And of course, how much of the Budget was keeping the establishment in place ?


  • Options
    #70
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    MarchDub wrote: »
    There was absolutely nothing in the HR document to indicate that in the future the old familiar imbalance in fiances would not be the order of the day and Ireland would pay for their wars for example. The Home Rule bill of 1914 was an open invitation for Westminster to take what they wanted - which was the total taxation taken in Ireland - and then decide what they wanted to dispense back.
    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    You are correct in this, there was no protection for Ireland in this bill. The pattern though as per my previous post suggested that the British seemed to accept that they would have a deficit for the forseeable future, i.e. a net expenditure rather than gain for Britain. I agree that it is hard not to be cynical in this regard but there is no evidence that Asquiths opinion was not genuine in 1912. On the contrary he stated that the deficit would rise.

    I think I'll have to mainly side with Marchdub here, I think one could definitely make the argument that the third home rule bill was pushed forward at least in part by the fact that Ireland had begun to cost the British exchequer more than it gained, HR could potentially had redressed that in Britain's favour. But perhaps more importantly than that we should consider what happened after WWI started, the cost of goods increased hugely and taxes rose, and Ireland was expected to pay her fair share and more of the war cost. how much did that cost Ireland and did it see Ireland again giving Britain more than it got back?


  • Options
    #71
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    brianthebard wrote: »
    But perhaps more importantly than that we should consider what happened after WWI started, the cost of goods increased hugely and taxes rose, and Ireland was expected to pay her fair share and more of the war cost. how much did that cost Ireland and did it see Ireland again giving Britain more than it got back?

    Was Ireland treated differently to the British mainland and was there free trade .
    A poor country, mainly agricultural, is, for financial purposes, yoked with a rich country, mainly industrial, and the standard and scale of financial provision suitable to England has been necessarily, and almost automatically, applied to Ireland. That is conspicuously the case in regard to Old Age Pensions and Postal Services.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    CDfm wrote: »

    So other than partition - what were his treaty objections ??

    Dev? The big issue for him in the Treaty was the Oath of Allegiance to the Monarch and the fact that the "Republic" as proclaimed in 1916 and ratified by the Dail was denied. The subsequent Dail debate on the Treaty is very interesting. There is much muddling over the plenipotentiaries and what power they were supposed to have etc. and that they were charged with bringing back an Irish Republic -


    De Valera: Was that ever presented? It was given in order to get the British Government to recognise the Irish Republic. Was that document giving the credentials of the accredited representatives from the Irish Government to the British Government presented to, or accepted by, the British delegates? Was that taken by the British delegates or accepted by them?

    Collins became frustrated with all this and at one point replied:

    Michael Collins: If I am a traitor, let the Irish people decide it or not, and if there are men who act towards me as a traitor I am prepared to meet them anywhere, any time, now as in the past. For that reason I do not want the issue prejudged. I am in favour of a public session here now.


  • Options
    #73
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    brianthebard wrote: »
    I think I'll have to mainly side with Marchdub here, I think one could definitely make the argument that the third home rule bill was pushed forward at least in part by the fact that Ireland had begun to cost the British exchequer more than it gained, HR could potentially had redressed that in Britain's favour. But perhaps more importantly than that we should consider what happened after WWI started, the cost of goods increased hugely and taxes rose, and Ireland was expected to pay her fair share and more of the war cost. how much did that cost Ireland and did it see Ireland again giving Britain more than it got back?

    The financial clauses of the 3rd Home rule bill were quite complicated and they proposed a staged handover of many things such as policing and other reserved items. The bill proposed a reducing figure (from 500,000) that would have restricted the rising liability that Ireland had become in 1912 which supports your 1st point. As the bill was'nt enacted the provision for future Irish government tax adjustments and possible imperial contributions were not tested.
    CDfm wrote: »
    Was Ireland treated differently to the British mainland and was there free trade .


    I don't know financial costs for the war years but Ireland did escape conscription which would have been the higher cost.


  • Options
    #74
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    MarchDub wrote: »
    Dev? The big issue for him in the Treaty was the Oath of Allegiance to the Monarch and the fact that the "Republic" as proclaimed in 1916 and ratified by the Dail was denied. -

    When he later had to sign his allegiance in accordance with the oath it was just signing a meaningless piece of paper. There is plenty to question in relation to Dev's changing views on these matters. Would he be our first 'consumate politician' or our first 'Fianna Fail politician', the difference between these being marked.


  • Options
    #75
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    MarchDub wrote: »
    Dev? The big issue for him in the Treaty was the Oath of Allegiance to the Monarch and the fact that the "Republic" as proclaimed in 1916 and ratified by the Dail was denied.

    So partition was way down the shopping list somewhere.

    The subsequent Dail debate on the Treaty is very interesting. There is much muddling over the plenipotentiaries and what power they were supposed to have etc. and that they were charged with bringing back an Irish Republic -

    Cool - so it was a political power trip too.

    Could it be that DeV saw power leaving his grasp & Collins and Griffiths taking over.

    DeV did soften his attitude on this and subsequently stopped short of declaring a republic was this an ideological shift.

    I mean -the terms Republic or Dominion are fairly abstract in real terms.


  • Options
    #76
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    CDfm wrote: »




    Cool - so it was a political power trip too.

    Could it be that DeV saw power leaving his grasp & Collins and Griffiths taking over.

    DeV did soften his attitude on this and subsequently stopped short of declaring a republic was this an ideological shift.

    I mean -the terms Republic or Dominion are fairly abstract in real terms.

    The evidence does not suggest that Dev was a power hungry mogul. He seemed to genuinely feel that Ireland being a 'subject' state was unacceptable - and the oath of allegiance made Ireland that. An Irish Republic by definition could not involve an oath to any external power. He tried to challenge the oath in the courts in 1926 but Cumann na Gaedhael blocked it. He wasn't long in power before he abolished the oath.


  • Options
    #77
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    MarchDub wrote: »
    The evidence does not suggest that Dev was a power hungry mogul. He seemed to genuinely feel that Ireland being a 'subject' state was unacceptable - and the oath of allegiance made Ireland that. An Irish Republic by definition could not involve an oath to any external power. He tried to challenge the oath in the courts in 1926 but Cumann na Gaedhael blocked it. He wasn't long in power before he abolished the oath.

    This is all true and I would agree with De Valeras sentiment. He felt strong enough about it to fight a civil war over it so I would not doubt any integrity in his actual objection to an oath. The problem is 1. how he sent others (the plenipotentiaries refered to earlier) to negotiate an agreement that was likely to have such an oath and 2. having fought a civil war over the oath he then made light of it when he signed the oath to allow himself to take power. I know this can be put down to adapting to the changing situation but it is a huge question mark.


  • Options
    #78
    marshman
    Registered Users Posts: 4 ✭marshman


    i ws jst wonderin if ny1 hd ny info about how devalera escaped from lincoln prison in 1919 wud day plz let me no tanx


  • Options
    #79
    Spear
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Help & Feedback Category Moderators Posts: 25,096 CMod ✭✭✭✭Spear


    Moved from N&F. And as per normal sitewide rules txt spk isn't tolerated.


  • Options
    #80
    marshman
    Registered Users Posts: 4 ✭marshman


    sorry im new to this am what dose N&F mean/


  • Options
    #81
    Spear
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Help & Feedback Category Moderators Posts: 25,096 CMod ✭✭✭✭Spear


    marshman wrote: »
    sorry im new to this am what dose N&F mean/

    It's the place you wrongly posted this initially.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    marshman
    Registered Users Posts: 4 ✭marshman


    where do i place it? :)


  • Options
    #83
    Spear
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Help & Feedback Category Moderators Posts: 25,096 CMod ✭✭✭✭Spear


    marshman wrote: »
    where do i place it? :)

    You don't need to now. I moved it to history, where the local mods merged it into this larger thread which covers all Dev related topics. It's in the right place now.


  • Options
    #84
    marshman
    Registered Users Posts: 4 ✭marshman


    Spear wrote: »
    You don't need to now. I moved it to history, where the local mods merged it into this larger thread which covers all Dev related topics. It's in the right place now.


    Thank you very much :)


  • Options
    #85
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    marshman wrote: »
    i ws jst wonderin if ny1 hd ny info about how devalera escaped from lincoln prison in 1919 wud day plz let me no tanx

    Starting on page 443 of this link is a brief overview description of the escape. The book is by the daughter of a man who helped in the escape and was in the GPO in 1916: http://books.google.ie/books?id=ZhLtr0fthtMC&pg=PA443&dq=devalera+lincoln&hl=en&ei=7qbDTeKuPMSGhQeno-mFBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=443&f=false


Advertisement