Differences between Home Rule v The Free State

gormdubhgorm

Home Rule Billl:
The Prime Minister, H. H. Asquith, introduced the Bill on 11 April 1912.
Allowing more autonomy than its two predecessors, the bill provided for:

A bicameral Irish Parliament to be set up in Dublin (a 40-member Senate and a 164-member House of Commons) with powers to deal with most national affairs;
A number of Irish MPs would continue to sit in the Parliament of the United Kingdom (42 MPs, rather than 103).
The abolition of Dublin Castle administration, though with the retention of the Lord Lieutenant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Ireland_Act_1914

The Irish Free State:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Free_State#Governmental_and_constitutional_structures
It seems that all that was given was a few name changes. Like the Governor General instead of the Lord Lieutenant.

Was the Irish Free State just a fancier name for Home Rule or am I missing something?

What powers did the Irish Free State get that the Home Rule Bill would have given?

BalcombeSt4

I think there was some more international freedoms under the Free State just like Canada & Australia had & unlike Scotland has at the moment or say Catalonia or Basque home rule did during the Spanish Republic. I don't think you could have dismantled most of the unpopular stuff in the treaty under Home Rule in just 15 years like you could with the Free State treaty.

But for the vast majority of the population it really made very little difference to day to day life.

K-9

Thread moved to History & Heritage as it seems a better fit than politics.

Mr.Nice Guy

Home Rule would have still seen Irish MPs heading to Westminster and it did not confer powers on taxation, defence, or foreign affairs. All of these would fall under the remit of Westminster's parliament. The Irish Free State had these powers (although as regards defence, the naval ports were retained until de Valera later secured their return).

I remember reading that Redmond had to use all of his powers of persuasion to get his supporters to back the Home Rule that was offered, as most of them had expected to receive a lot more authority from the British.

You're on to something in that there are similarities, the treaty was a case of the usual both sides looking to appear as having won. But there are significant differences in that the treaty gave the free state control of its army, and where home rule stated that an Irish parliament would have control over most things, it wouldn't have total control.... a subtle but very important difference.

In practicality home rule would have been a devolved government where the crown could raid the kitty in times of war, whereas the free state was a fiction of convenience to mask the fact that the 26 counties pretty much had sovereign independence eventually leading to the eventual constitution and de facto independence.

Essentially the Brits realised that Ireland was no longer worth the instability that having your nearest colony revolt would cause trouble else where in the empire, so the free state was their attempt at a graceful exit.

4512

The minute difference of one sixth of the country remaining under British rule ...

gormdubhgorm

4512 wrote: »

The minute difference of one sixth of the country remaining under British rule ...

I thought of that but I am not sure the Ulster Volunteers were too keen on home rule either! So more then likely it would be 26 counties under Home Rule as well?

2rkehij30qtza5

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I thought of that but I am not sure the Ulster Volunteers were too keen on home rule either! So more then likely it would be 26 counties under Home Rule as well?

There were really one 4 main unionist majority counties. Two of the six counties were mainly nationalist

gormdubhgorm

Imani Little Busboy wrote: »

There were really one 4 main unionist majority counties. Two of the six counties were mainly nationalist

Your correct. I seem to remember Northern Ireland considered taking just 4 counties. But did not consider it viable to form an entity with just 4.

Jim2007

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Was the Irish Free State just a fancier name for Home Rule or am I missing something?

- Under home rule power is derived from the monarch, in the Free State power is derived from the people

- The appointment of the governor general at the discretion of the Irish government (although appointed by the monarch), Lord Lieutenant at the discretion of the monarch.

- Recognition of ambassadors to and of other countries (despite the objections of the foreign office)

- An international treaty registered with the league of nations as opposed to an internal agreement within the UK

- Dominion status

recedite

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I thought of that but I am not sure the Ulster Volunteers were too keen on home rule either! So more then likely it would be 26 counties under Home Rule as well?

In 1914 they weren't. In 1915 and early 1916 the UV and the IV forces were fighting alongside each other in the trenches, and the enmity between them was disappearing. Redmond reckoned they would all return home as a band of brothers, but Pearse had other ideas.

I presume Home Rule would have been similar to what Scotland would have now if they had voted Yes in that referendum.

FrancieBrady

recedite wrote: »

In 1914 they weren't. In 1915 and early 1916 the UV and the IV forces were fighting alongside each other in the trenches, and the enmity between them was disappearing. Redmond reckoned they would all return home as a band of brothers, but Pearse had other ideas.

I presume Home Rule would have been similar to what Scotland would have now if they had voted Yes in that referendum.

And so did the British, who were worried enough about Irish troops returning as trained groups of soldiers that they began splitting them up. I think that was Churchill's directive, but I could be wrong. One wonders, did he(or whoever's initiative it was) know that Home Rule hadn't a chance in hell of being delivered?

jonniebgood1

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And so did the British, who were worried enough about Irish troops returning as trained groups of soldiers that they began splitting them up. I think that was Churchill's directive, but I could be wrong. One wonders, did he(or whoever's initiative it was) know that Home Rule hadn't a chance in hell of being delivered?

Whilst these 2 points seem interesting I haven't seen any evidence of them- Do you have a link or source?

FrancieBrady

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Whilst these 2 points seem interesting I haven't seen any evidence of them- Do you have a link or source?

I have a note of the source written down at home, I will post it later.

recedite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And so did the British, who were worried enough about Irish troops returning as trained groups of soldiers that they began splitting them up.

I don't see how it would be possible to "untrain" veteran troops.

riffmongous

Weren't the Irish divisions pretty shattered by the end of the war though? And with Irish replacements drying up I thought there was quite a lot of English making up the numbers near the end

Manach

recedite wrote: »

I don't see how it would be possible to "untrain" veteran troops.

In general, perhaps they could be untrained in the ways of war. In the book 1919, the author describes the societal impact of soldiers who after being demobbed went from an organised group who experienced the worse of wars to individuals without that collective persona.
In Germany they formed the basic of the Freikorps whilst in Italy they formed the bedrock of the Black shirt movement. Even in Britain, there were a number of instances where the troops nearly mutinied for a variety of reasons. Thus any way to untrain troops would have been welcome, except perhaps to re-organise them into groups like the Black and Tans.

demfad

4512 wrote: »

The minute difference of one sixth of the country remaining under British rule ...

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I thought of that but I am not sure the Ulster Volunteers were too keen on home rule either! So more then likely it would be 26 counties under Home Rule as well?

There may have been a connection between a clause in the Home Rule Bill and the militarisation of Ireland and indeed the 1916 rising. There was strong opposition within the British cabinet to Home Rule with the likes of Winston Churchill insisting that Ulster should be left out. The Prime Minister pointed out that even though Home Rule was for the whole country, there was a clause in the Bill saying that an exception may be found if the situation 'changed' in Ulster.

This clause was an invitation to Unionists to create a 'changed' situation in Ulster by importing arms for the UVF and bolstering the number to over 100,000. Churchill made many visits to Ulster to fire things up. The IVF was formed in response and the country looked on the brink of Civil war.

The plan worked short term, and Asquiths 'amending Bill' of 1914 guaranteed temporary exclusion (like the Home Rule Bill it was postponed till after World war 1). Asquith's strategy had worked and as a double bonus he was able to persuade both the Unionists and Home Rulers to send IVF (NVF) and UVF soldiers to WW1 as a kind of de facto blood sacrifice for their respective cause.

However, some of the guns swirling about the country as a result of this British strategy were eventually turned on the British State.

FrancieBrady

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Whilst these 2 points seem interesting I haven't seen any evidence of them- Do you have a link or source?

I have looked for the link to this, but can't find it as yet. Definitely read it though, it was either in Ferriter latest book or in A Coward If I Return, A Hero If I Fall.
I will keep looking for it.

Lt Dan

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Home Rule Billl:
The Prime Minister, H. H. Asquith, introduced the Bill on 11 April 1912.
Allowing more autonomy than its two predecessors, the bill provided for:

A bicameral Irish Parliament to be set up in Dublin (a 40-member Senate and a 164-member House of Commons) with powers to deal with most national affairs;
A number of Irish MPs would continue to sit in the Parliament of the United Kingdom (42 MPs, rather than 103).
The abolition of Dublin Castle administration, though with the retention of the Lord Lieutenant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Ireland_Act_1914

The Irish Free State:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Free_State#Governmental_and_constitutional_structures
It seems that all that was given was a few name changes. Like the Governor General instead of the Lord Lieutenant.

Was the Irish Free State just a fancier name for Home Rule or am I missing something?

What powers did the Irish Free State get that the Home Rule Bill would have given?

The Free State have Dominion Status like Canada etc and more powers under areas in Finance, and we didn't have to completely revert back to Wesminster to get approval of the budget.

Of course there was partition but that was always going to happen even without Civil War, WOI and 1916. Free State did not require a return of Irish MP's to Westminster.

We were not allowed a navy (which made us rely too much on British Shipping and this effected our economy with over reliance of on the British - which makes me laugh when Churchill applauded himself for how great the British apparently were for shipping food to Ireland during WW2)

British still retained navy ports.

Irish had to continue paying unjust land annuities and even war pensions for troops who served in Ireland. The land annuities which dated back from the land acts were wrong. Hence why De Valera was right to take the actions that he did , Ireland got bullied with the increase in taxes which lead to an Economic War which did hurt Ireland but a point had to be proved. We also got our ports back and this greatly helped us to stay neutral with the on coming war. Of course De Valera gets lambasted but that is mostly from uneducated fools who should know better. At least he saw the bigger picture unlike the short term obsessed society that we have today

Lt Dan

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Home Rule would have still seen Irish MPs heading to Westminster and it did not confer powers on taxation, defence, or foreign affairs. All of these would fall under the remit of Westminster's parliament. The Irish Free State had these powers (although as regards defence, the naval ports were retained until de Valera later secured their return).

I remember reading that Redmond had to use all of his powers of persuasion to get his supporters to back the Home Rule that was offered, as most of them had expected to receive a lot more authority from the British.

In essence Home Rule was a toothless talking shop and gave Redmond and co cushy pensions and an insurance that they would dominate the house without resorting to obstruction tactics in Westminster like decades before. Of course, you are right to point out that IPP wanted more

This is what infuriates me about John Bruton's opinion about how Home Rule would have changed everything. Nonsense, and this comes from a man who was a legislator and Parliamentarian. Pure down right lies. You would swear that he never read the text of the 1912-1914 Bills. I am astonished how smarter historians have not publicly tackled him on this

Lt Dan

Deleted User wrote: »

You're on to something in that there are similarities, the treaty was a case of the usual both sides looking to appear as having won. But there are significant differences in that the treaty gave the free state control of its army, and where home rule stated that an Irish parliament would have control over most things, it wouldn't have total control.... a subtle but very important difference.

In practicality home rule would have been a devolved government where the crown could raid the kitty in times of war, whereas the free state was a fiction of convenience to mask the fact that the 26 counties pretty much had sovereign independence eventually leading to the eventual constitution and de facto independence.

Essentially the Brits realised that Ireland was no longer worth the instability that having your nearest colony revolt would cause trouble else where in the empire, so the free state was their attempt at a graceful exit.

Control of the army was limited in the sense of the size that it was permitted to have. Of course, in peace time such a large size would have been unsustainable

Of course John Bruton and his like still think Home Rule was a uptopia and that it was only a matter of time more powers would have been granted. This is a Bill, which took over 20 years to get. This is a bill that only came through on a technicality as House of Lords could no longer veto it . With their inaction towards disciplining the UVF and their gun running and Unionist parities, and attempts to stop Howth gunning running and refusal to bring in the Bill into operation, when the South swore loyalty to the war effort, how could the South have trusted Britain to keep it's word.

From a British point of view, it would have been unjust to force Unionists in the North into Home Rule after their war efforts . Parliaments change too. Nothing would have stopped a new government with a majority to repeal or gutter the 1912/1914 Bill

demfad

Also to note some of the free state constitution was based on the proclamation. So there was in fact legally true gender (and other) equality at the outset.(only Sweden had similar, France not till 1944)
Successive legislation by the conservative Free State government reversed that, but I guess there was an initial social difference between the Free State and potential Home rule. (Redmond was not an admirer of gender equality.)

Lt Dan

Imani Little Busboy wrote: »

There were really one 4 main unionist majority counties. Two of the six counties were mainly nationalist

Unionists were always a minority on this island, but that never stopped a number of minorities from ruling or dictating this island decades before

Lt Dan

recedite wrote: »

I don't see how it would be possible to "untrain" veteran troops.

Splitting up in the sense of not allowing these groups to get too pally . Get them in with other British units

Lt Dan

riffmongous wrote: »

Weren't the Irish divisions pretty shattered by the end of the war though? And with Irish replacements drying up I thought there was quite a lot of English making up the numbers near the end

Still enough men who were capable to training units when they got back home . But yes, they were shattered and the Ulster Division beared a huge brunt of it. They (as the South were not allowed to have their own units, though word is, that was partly due to insufficient number of suitable and trained officers) would have the moral argument that they should not be forced to leave the UK if they did not so desire

Lt Dan

demfad wrote: »

Also to note some of the free state constitution was based on the proclamation. So there was in fact legally true gender (and other) equality at the outset.(only Sweden had similar, France not till 1944)
Successive legislation by the conservative Free State government reversed that, but I guess there was an initial social difference between the Free State and potential Home rule. (Redmond was not an admirer of gender equality.)

1922 Constitution had nothing to do with the Home Rule Bills. It was there to implement the Treaty into Irish law

Well, in essence, it guaranteed complete equality. There was no exclusion on gender. It was very secular. The Human Rights side to it was very good. I think the secularism and human rights guarantees came more from the British rather than the Proclamation - in essence to protect the minority, the Protestants (and for good reasons)

Bunreacht na hÉireann also has the good human rights side to it, but is couched in strong Catholic tone and paternal attitudes. It was only when the Courts interpreted it that the meaning came through - after all , how Catholic was Bunreacht na hÉireann (it was) when in later years it was able to be interpreted in allowing family planning (not sure Dev had intended that, but here you are) In a funny way, the 1922 Constitution was more in tune with Connolly's vision as contained in the Proclamation .

Sure, Kevin O'Higgins, the Conservative Catholic thought the Proclamation was "pure poetry".. You can sense what a lovely fella this chancer was (one minute big IPP man, the next jumps ships to Sinn Fein, knowing where the wind was blowing)

Redmond was probably a man of his time. Parnell was no different, he sought to ban his sister's own women's group. Sure, "shouldn't they be at home making that tay and making babies"

gormdubhgorm

I found a link here which refers to the establishment of Northern Ireland as the fourth Home Rule Bill in 1920.
http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/history/home-rule-the-irish-free-state-fourth-home-rule-bill.html
I never thought of it as that before, only as the government of Ireland Act 1920.

But I suppose it makes sense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Ireland_Act_1920

So that means after all that raging against home rule the Unionist's achieved Home Rule in 1920. Which was the lesser of two evils because it was not the Free State?
So paradoxically the Free State caused NI to get Home Rule.... With a different capital

jonniebgood1

Lt Dan wrote: »

Irish had to continue paying unjust land annuities and even war pensions for troops who served in Ireland. The land annuities which dated back from the land acts were wrong. Hence why De Valera was right to take the actions that he did , Ireland got bullied with the increase in taxes which lead to an Economic War which did hurt Ireland but a point had to be proved. We also got our ports back and this greatly helped us to stay neutral with the on coming war. Of course De Valera gets lambasted but that is mostly from uneducated fools who should know better. At least he saw the bigger picture unlike the short term obsessed society that we have today

Ireland was collecting land annuities under agree meant, they were not increased, Ireland decided to stop re-paying them. This action was the start of the economic war and led to tax increases on Irish goods. Quoted description is misleading.

Lt Dan

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Ireland was collecting land annuities under agree meant, they were not increased, Ireland decided to stop re-paying them. This action was the start of the economic war and led to tax increases on Irish goods. Quoted description is misleading.

Sorry, I should have made myself more clearer.

Correct, the land annuities remained the same.

The "increased" taxes that I was referring to , but failed to clearly state, were the customs and excise taxes for British goods coming to Ireland and Irish goods being sold in Britain

When Ireland withheld passing over the Annuities to Britain (they still collected them from the farmers) Britain upped the stakes by raising tariffs on food stuffs and transport of Irish Cattle

It got all nasty as the war years had rations in England, and it was hard enough to transport goods on ships with German Submarines roaming the coast.

Little old Ireland didn't stand a chance when that happened, but it did endure. The made a settlement of over 10 million punt in the end. Ouch. But , we had to stand up to them .

What I find funny is the way many people are extremely critical of De Valera's handling of the economy. There are merits in that criticism, but it ignores Cosgrave's governments and the general attitude of protectionism throughout Europe at the time. These would be the same people who moan about Ireland, today, capitulating to the EU

mikefoxo

Was there really a possibility of the British government not implementing/repealing Home Rule Bill? It was on the books after all, IPP would've been in uproar if it hadn't been enacted, and seeing as how they were acting as kingmakers at the time they could have caused a real s**tstorm in Westminster