Differences between Home Rule v The Free State

gormdubhgorm · 25-03-2016 12:22am #1

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 · 25-03-2016 1:53pm

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 · 25-03-2016 2:42pm

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

Mr.Nice Guy · 26-03-2016 12:34am

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.

26-03-2016 1:41pm

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.

26-03-2016 10:35pm

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

gormdubhgorm · 26-03-2016 11:10pm

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 · 28-03-2016 7:21pm

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 · 28-03-2016 10:24pm

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 · 01-04-2016 4:41pm

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 · 02-04-2016 5:04pm

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 · 05-04-2016 9:18am

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 · 05-04-2016 9:56am

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 · 05-04-2016 10:19am

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 · 05-04-2016 6:03pm

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 · 05-04-2016 8:51pm

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 · 05-04-2016 9:35pm

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 · 06-04-2016 11:55am

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 · 06-04-2016 5:52pm

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 · 06-04-2016 7:26pm

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 · 06-04-2016 7:31pm

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 · 06-04-2016 7:42pm

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 · 06-04-2016 7:43pm

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 · 06-04-2016 7:44pm

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 · 06-04-2016 7:47pm

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 · 06-04-2016 7:50pm

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 · 06-04-2016 7:58pm

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 · 06-04-2016 9:54pm

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 · 07-04-2016 12:58pm

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 · 07-04-2016 1:20pm

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 · 08-04-2016 7:34pm

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

FrancieBrady · 08-04-2016 7:53pm

mikefoxo wrote: »

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

It was a very limited form of Home Rule and it probably would not have survived conscription as it is difficult to see how a man who supported the 1916 executions would have stood up to Britain.
The IPP did oppose conscription but it would have been a different story if they were leading an Irish Home Rule parliament.

recedite · 09-04-2016 7:28am

The British never tried to enforce conscription in Ireland. Eoin Mc Neill was committed to using the main force of the Irish Volunteers to resist any such moves (ie all the guys who were "stood down" for the duration of the rising).

Anyway, once the USA joined the war early in 1918 there was no need for it from the British point of view; the yanks had plenty of manpower to contribute.

FrancieBrady · 09-04-2016 8:57am

recedite wrote: »

The British never tried to enforce conscription in Ireland. Eoin Mc Neill was committed to using the main force of the Irish Volunteers to resist any such moves (ie all the guys who were "stood down" for the duration of the rising).

Anyway, once the USA joined the war early in 1918 there was no need for it from the British point of view; the yanks had plenty of manpower to contribute.

Depends what you call 'tried'. Introducing legislation would be an attempt to 'enforce' in my eyes.
In March 1918 D. L. George introduced plans at cabinet to raise 500,000 men - 150,000 of them from Ireland. This conscription legislation was included in the Home Rule bill and effectively after a period ended British rule in Ireland. It also finished any hope of consensus between Unionists and Nationalists.

It was another case where the British, through lack of understanding the Irish situation - shot themselves in the foot ala the hunger Strikes, Bloody Sunday etc.

jonniebgood1 · 09-04-2016 9:43am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Depends what you call 'tried'. Introducing legislation would be an attempt to 'enforce' in my eyes.
In March 1918 D. L. George introduced plans at cabinet to raise 500,000 men - 150,000 of them from Ireland. This conscription legislation was included in the Home Rule bill and effectively after a period ended British rule in Ireland. It also finished any hope of consensus between Unionists and Nationalists.

It was another case where the British, through lack of understanding the Irish situation - shot themselves in the foot ala the hunger Strikes, Bloody Sunday etc.

Plans at cabinet, even passing a bill or talking about the possibility of introducing something is very very different than on the ground enforced conscription. The fact that conscription was used in uk but excluded Ireland in ww1 was because it was understood that there was massive opposition to it. This seems the opposite to your post. If conscription had been enforced in Ireland then your last point would be correct. It wasn't.

FrancieBrady · 09-04-2016 9:52am

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Plans at cabinet, even passing a bill or talking about the possibility of introducing something is very very different than on the ground enforced conscription. The fact that conscription was used in uk but excluded Ireland in ww1 was because it was understood that there was massive opposition to it. This seems the opposite to your post. If conscription had been enforced in Ireland then your last point would be correct. It wasn't.

I didn't say they 'enforced' it 'on the ground'. I said that the 'attempt to enforce it' precipitated the end of British Rule. Any reading of the events of the time would conclude that.

recedite · 10-04-2016 11:23am

But there was no attempt to enforce it. And the end of British rule didn't come until a few years later, in 1922.

The end was precipitated by the de facto existence of an alternative state in the 26 counties, having its own government, parliament, army, and courts system (the republican courts) operating in parallel to, and against, the British system, but having more popular support.
The country had essentially become ungovernable from Britain.

FrancieBrady · 10-04-2016 11:36am

recedite wrote: »

But there was no attempt to enforce it. And the end of British rule didn't come until a few years later, in 1922.

The end was precipitated by the de facto existence of an alternative state in the 26 counties, having its own government, parliament, army, and courts system (the republican courts) operating in parallel to, and against, the British system, but having more popular support.
The country had essentially become ungovernable from Britain.

So, a sitting government introducing legislation is not an 'attempt to enforce something'?

And that 'attempt' - debate about conscription did not add cumulatively to popular support for the alternative government?

Is that what you are saying?

Lt Dan · 10-04-2016 3:28pm

mikefoxo wrote: »

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

Britain got a serious scare in Word War 1. The Empire was starting to crumble. As they had previously, Unionists dictated the fate of the majority in Ireland. After their great blood sacrifice in Europe, there was no way the Unionists would have allowed or accepted Home Rule, and they would have had the moral authority from the British public to back them

At best, there was always going to be Partition, and Redmond was aware of that risk. That would have hurt him big time.

On the other hand, Britain , although more than delighted to get rid of the Irish Question, may not have been in the mood of loosing territory under a new Government. The Bill after all only got through on a technicality (ie removal of House of Lords veto)

With the changing world after World War 1, some movement, whether it was the IPP or Republicans would have demanded something better than Home Rule

It is a nonsense for the likes of Bruton and the anti 1916 people to say everything would have worked out. There is no basis for this. It might have happened, it might not, but there was enough evidence at that time, rather than hindsight , to suggest things would not have worked out

Why didn't Britain just implement Home Rule there and then? Ireland would have unquestionably , through Redmond, have gotten even more Irishmen out to Europe to fight.Whatever about the ICA, the IRB movement would have had an obstacle in front of them. The war was a helpful distraction for Westminster

Lt Dan · 10-04-2016 3:30pm

recedite wrote: »

The British never tried to enforce conscription in Ireland. Eoin Mc Neill was committed to using the main force of the Irish Volunteers to resist any such moves (ie all the guys who were "stood down" for the duration of the rising).

Anyway, once the USA joined the war early in 1918 there was no need for it from the British point of view; the yanks had plenty of manpower to contribute.

They did suggest it, but even the Unionists warned them that this would cause problems.

Sinn Fein gained from this threat in 1918 elections, as you probably already know

Lt Dan · 10-04-2016 3:33pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Depends what you call 'tried'. Introducing legislation would be an attempt to 'enforce' in my eyes.
In March 1918 D. L. George introduced plans at cabinet to raise 500,000 men - 150,000 of them from Ireland. This conscription legislation was included in the Home Rule bill and effectively after a period ended British rule in Ireland. It also finished any hope of consensus between Unionists and Nationalists.

It was another case where the British, through lack of understanding the Irish situation - shot themselves in the foot ala the hunger Strikes, Bloody Sunday etc.

Add banning of the Dail and illegal arrest of TD's even if their army had started a surge of violence .

Why isn't John Bruton ever challenged on this stuff, he is a democrat isn't he? Oh right, he will only talk when he will be in a safe environment

FrancieBrady · 10-04-2016 3:42pm

Lt Dan wrote: »

Add banning of the Dail and illegal arrest of TD's even if their army had started a surge of violence .

Why isn't John Bruton ever challenged on this stuff, he is a democrat isn't he? Oh right, he will only talk when he will be in a safe environment

Because 'talking' about it might involve being critical of the British and our national broadcaster and majority indentured media will have none of that, thank you very much.

He gets plenty of questions on the more independent social media networks and sites though.
It isn't that hard to demolish his argument, if you could call it that.

recedite · 11-04-2016 1:31pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So, a sitting government introducing legislation is not an 'attempt to enforce something'?

That's right.
Lets imagine our current minister for justice asked the Gardai to stop checking for drink driving within Co.Kerry, and not to prosecute anyone for it. That means the legislation is not being enforced in that region, and everyone would know that they were free to drink-drive there. That's how it was for conscription in Ireland, for the short period of time it was on the statute books, during part of 1918.

Irish History · 15-08-2023 1:22pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2057576989/differences-between-home-rule-v-the-free-state

The Free State was a Dominion of the British Empire - not Home Rule.

The irony is that Unionists accepted Home Rule with its own government in what became so-called northern Ireland - something they would not accept with us native Irish people and within Ireland as a whole.

donaghs · 16-08-2023 7:55am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120981469#Comment_120981469

You like reopening the old threads? :)

I also find it interesting that in 1972 the Republic of Ireland and the UK (and Denmark) joined the EEC as full member states, whereas also in 1972, the UK shutdown the Stormont parliament and reintroduced direct rule.

BalcombeSt4 · 17-08-2023 11:56pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120984542#Comment_120984542

It was also the same year as Bloody Friday, Belfast's Bloody Sunday (Springhill massacre), Battle at Springmartin, Claudy, the Lenadoon Battle, the first roomper rooms, the first IRA landmines being used in rural areas against mobile patrols and loyalist car bombs coming south for the first time, with a total of 5 going off in Dublin, Belturbet, Pettigo & Clones in December alone killing 4, including 2 children and injuring about 150. And the year started with a massacre in Derry, Bloody Sunday of course and ended with a massacre in Derry, when on the 20th December 1972 two UDA/UFF men walked into a small pub in a small Catholic enclave in the largely Protestant Waterside district of Derry and sprayed the pub with machine gun fire killing 5 people and injuring 4 others.

It was also the first year since 1921 that British Government representatives met with an IRA delegation in Cheyne Walk, London. That delegation of July 1972 included Sean Mac Stoifain, Seamus Twomey, Daithi O'Connell, Ivor Bell, Gerry & Marty. It has to be pointed out Gerry was only there in his capacity as a member, or, if you will a Soulmate of Sinn Fein, which he hadn't actually joined yet, but he had joined them in mind, body and soul, just not officially, Gerry didn't like joining things officially because it reminded him too much of the Sticky IRA.

BalcombeSt4 · 18-08-2023 1:14am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120981469#Comment_120981469

Well, it wasn't because of the "native" Irish they didn't want Home Rule. They believed a government run from Dublin would be too much influenced by the Roman Catholic, something they were proved right about when at the end of the Tan War the Catholic upper & middle classes along with the Bishops jumped on the SF bandwagon, people influenced by an inherently authoritarian organization and into their apologetics. I mean if I was a Protestant or an atheist which I am, I would not have wanted to live in the south of Ireland between 1922 - 1988, it was a real priest ridden, bog trotting, Celtic Brigadoon.

Manach · 21-08-2023 3:09pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120993527#Comment_120993527

Feel free to vent old boy, but at least try and restraint your anti-Catholicism to other other forums instead of bring it here.

BalcombeSt4 · 21-08-2023 6:46pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121008028#Comment_121008028

I was born a Catholic. I don't hate Catholics, Tom Barry, Bernie Devlin, James Connolly, Seamus Costello, Frank Ryan etc.... are people who I admire greatly, that is not a snub to the the mass population of Catholics living in Ireland between 1921 - late 80's/early 90's.

The Catholic in Ireland to an extent had a number of state intuitions, Ireland was officially a Christian State so much for "religious & civil liberties" in the proclamation. It's a fact the Irish government in the early & mid 20th century had to get had to get permission from the Bishops especially John Charles McQuaid.

The Catholic church in Ireland was always linked to the political life in the country.

growleaves · 21-08-2023 7:06pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121008952#Comment_121008952

I think it's a mistake for post-Catholic atheists to adopt the loaded term "priest ridden", which G.M. Trevelyan says was originally associated with the Cromwell period, as their own.

Neutral language would be better.

BalcombeSt4 · 23-08-2023 8:53am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121009035#Comment_121009035

Priest-ridden meaning = adjective. dominated or governed by or excessively under the influence of priests.

Yes, Cromwell & Trevelyan were pr!cks, but a broken clock is right twice a day.

And I wasn't referring to the Catholic Church in the 17th & 19th century when it was an oppressed church, which is why it was regarded as a people's church here unlike France & Spain were the Church was a part of the ruling class. I was talking about for most of the 20th century when Ireland was under Rome Rule (the broken clock analogy works with Craig & Carson here), now i very much do not think there is any comparison between the treatment the Catholics in the north suffered to the relatively easy time Protestants in the south had it, a number of them were in various governments, there was a Protestant president, plenty of Irish revolutionaries were involved in the fight against the Brits like Erskine Childers, who a quasi-military dictatorship wanted to make an example out of & killed him.

I have read stories about Protestants "fleeing the south" when the Free State came into existence, that is simply false, some families might have moved north to be closer to friends, relatives & like minded people, but nobody ran them out or forced them to flee. Although life wasn't all inclusive for Protestants, the Republicans Congress delegate to Bodenstown in 1934 was accompanied by a number Shankill, Protestant socialists who carried slogans of James Connolly, the brainwashed Catholics in other groups attacked the small group of Protestants because they were of the wrong religion, despite Tone being one.

Never the less, the tentacles of the Catholic church infiltrated every part of Irish society. Ireland now might be a defective democracy, but at least it's no longer a plutocracy.

Differences between Home Rule v The Free State

Comments