Home Rule Act implemented before WWI

The Irish Home Rule Act of 1914 was initially proposed in 1912 but only passed in 1914 under the Parliament Act of 1911, after two rejections by the House of Lords. It would have established a devolved Parliament in Ireland, but was suspended for the duration of World War One without ever coming into effect. The suspension, together with the postponement of Parliamentary elections for the duration, was a major factor in the death of the Irish Parliamentary Party and growth of Sinn Fein leading to an independent Ireland after the war.

So, what if the Home Rule Act had time to be implemented - either because the war's postponed or (to minimize butterflies) because it's passed earlier? What would that do to Irish national sentiments? Would Ireland stay within the United Kingdom? Or would the Free State and Republic simply be postponed? Would that impede the whole Statute of Westminster and the Dominions' independence?
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
I put up a thread on this a few months ago and it got no answers. Does anyone have a response to this question?
 
Ireland can't really afford to go independent without the industrial north but by 1914 they had concluded they the north would be excluded in some way be it 6 or even 9 counties. Without the war, it would probably stay in the Empire and not go fully independent. 'Federalism' for the UK was being discussed in mid 1914 as Scotland was also looking at 'home rule'. New Zealand always had the option to join Australia and the North would probably have the same mechanism to re-unite with the South.

When the Liberals regained power in 1906, their majority was large enough that they did not need Nationalist votes and so could delay the fated appointment with Irish home rule. That changed in 1909, when the House of Lords vetoed Lloyd George’s so-called People’s Budget for taxing its members’ estates, and the Liberal prime minister, Herbert Henry Asquith, called for a general election to be fought over the issue of stripping the veto from the unelected House of Lords. That election, and a second eleven months later, left the Liberals and Unionists tied, with 272 seats each. But the latter had received three hundred thousand more votes, one source of Unionist bitterness. Another was the “corrupt bargain” to remain in power that the Liberals struck with forty-two Labour and eighty-four Nationalist MPs, the latter regarded by Unionists as a “purely sectional interest [with] no right to impose their views on the kingdom as a whole.” The corrupt bargain was a myth to fire up the Unionist base. The Liberals could govern without Nationalists; there were enough Labour MPs to assure their majority, but Asquith & Co. were chary of depending on a party they competed with in England. As his price the Nationalist leader, John Redmond, obliged the Liberals to drain the cup. “I believe the current members of the Liberal Party are sincere,” he told a Limerick audience. “Whether they are or not we will make them … toe the line.” By the newly enacted Parliament Act, a bill that passed in three sessions of the House became law. Home rule passed in 1912; it passed again in 1913; and, as soon as the government submitted it, it would pass a final time by summer 1914.

Ten days after Sarajevo, Lloyd George assured his auditors at London’s Guildhall that “in the matter of external affairs, the sky has never been more perfectly blue.” As late as July 22, describing the recent course of Anglo-German relations, the chancellor said, “There is none of the snarling which we used to see.” Until the last days of July the headlines— MACHINE GUNS FOR ULSTER, 30,000 RIFLES AND 10,000 ROUNDS LAND IN BELFAST, 3000 TRAINED NURSES FOR ULSTER— heralded civil war.

“The damnable question” of Ireland had brought it to what the London Times called “one of the great crises in the history of the British race.” Up to the last days of July, the “Revolt in Ulster” received more coverage in 1914 than any other story in the world.The Times for July 28, which announced Austria’s declaration of war on Serbia, led with the headline SHOOTING IN BACHELOR’S WALK above a bulletin of the worst news yet from Ireland.

On July 4, 1914, the Military Members of the Army Council warned the British cabinet that there were two hundred thousand armed men in Ireland, and that if civil war broke out the entire Expeditionary Force, the Special Reserve, and the Territorial Army would be required to restore order. “If the whole of our Expeditionary Force were used in Ireland,” the Army Council concluded, “we should be quite incapable of meeting our obligations abroad.”

Concluding that democratic governance was about to be overturned in Ulster, Churchill ordered eight battleships based in Gibraltar and eight destroyers of the Fourth Flotilla in England to sail to the waters between Scotland and Ulster, “where they would be in proximity to the coasts of Ireland in case of serious disorders occurring.” In addition, he dispatched HMS Pathfinder and HMS Attentive to Belfast Louch with orders to defend “by every means” the eighty-five tons of ammunition at Carrickfergus Castle, held by only twenty soldiers. Indulging his penchant for verbal melodrama, Churchill told Sir John French, chief of the General Staff, that “if there were opposition to the movement of the troops, he would pour enough shot and shell into Belfast to reduce it to ruins in 24 hours.” The officers of the cruisers instead had lunch at Carson's estate at his invitation.

"If Ulstermen extend the hand of friendship, it will be clasped by Liberals and by their Nationalist countrymen in all good faith and in all good will; but if there is no wish for peace; if every concession that is made is spurned and exploited; if every effort to meet their views is only to be used as a means of breaking down Home Rule and of barring the way to the rest of Ireland; if the Government and Parliament of this great country and greater Empire are to be exposed to menace and brutality; if all the loose, wanton, and reckless chatter we have been forced to listen to these many months is in the end to disclose a sinister and revolutionary purpose; then I can only say to you, “Let us go forward together and put these grave matters to the proof.”

-Winston Churchill, Bradford Speech March 14, 1914
The Liberals will probably really push for Home Rule just as they did put it on the Statute Books in Sept 1914. This will probably result in electoral suicide for them in the 1915 General Election.
 
I tend to agree with the late Ronan Fanning's views in Fatal Path that most of the Liberals were desperate to escape the Home rule issue and that far from Redmond holding any sort of whip hand he was completely dependent on them. That is not an encouraging beginning for a settlement and I'm not entirely convinced the Liberals would have found some excuse to abandon the Home Rulers if the First World War isn't immediately coming on.

Assuming it does go through though the status of the North is a huge question mark. Even Redmond would not be able to go back to his supporters with ingrained permanent partition so at a minimum he'd need something like the OTL Boundary Commission. Less antagonistically Redmond would probably try and hype up the role of the Council of Ireland if it exists, to at least symbolically show a phantom unity.

In the longer term I don't see (Southern) Ireland staying in the UK for long though it probably won't become an actual republic. Rather you'd see a strong push towards becoming a full Dominion like Canada, Australia or New Zealand. The very thin beer of 'Home Rule' itself isn't going to satisfy people indefinitely, especially as at least in the 1920s turning into a Dominion would seem to be a case of having your cake and eating it too.
 
On July 4, 1914, the Military Members of the Army Council warned the British cabinet that there were two hundred thousand armed men in Ireland, and that if civil war broke out the entire Expeditionary Force, the Special Reserve, and the Territorial Army would be required to restore order. “If the whole of our Expeditionary Force were used in Ireland,” the Army Council concluded, “we should be quite incapable of meeting our obligations abroad.”

Huh... So if things had moved just a bit faster in Ireland, there's a chance that Britain could be too wrapped up in internal matters to take part in the crucial opening stages of WW1?

In the longer term I don't see (Southern) Ireland staying in the UK for long though it probably won't become an actual republic. Rather you'd see a strong push towards becoming a full Dominion like Canada, Australia or New Zealand. The very thin beer of 'Home Rule' itself isn't going to satisfy people indefinitely, especially as at least in the 1920s turning into a Dominion would seem to be a case of having your cake and eating it too.

I wonder if that might push Britain to work harder to keep the dominions close. Imperial Federation in order to keep some sort of a hold on Ireland?

fasquardon
 
As an entire unit, Ireland was loosing £1,000,000 per annum. It at that time it was not a viable option, hence ‘home rule’ was offered as a steppingstone to becoming a Dominion. The Island was divided as a temporary solution to permit discussions to resolve our differences.
The industrial power of Belfast, which at that time was competing with Birmingham and Glasgow to be the second city in the Empire, and was winning, required it to stay part of the union. “Protestant Ulster” was making £1,000,000 profit per annum.

Though often classed as Nationalist/Roman Catholic v Unionist/Protestant isn’t quite fair. Many Irish, who were southerners and of the Roman Catholic religion fought as part of the British Army in both world wars. One of the leading WW2 Generals was an IRA Volunteer in the 50’s.

In reality there were and are Protestant Republicans and there are Roman Catholics who are Unionist. There were many different factions about then, as now. One of the major stumbling blocks was to sent Field Marshall Sir George White VC’s son, an ardent socialist to Presbyterian Ballymena to sell a socialistism, not Home Rule.

I think, had not WW1 interfered the Irish could’ve resolved our differences, eventually gaining Dominion status and probably, along with Australia, Canada, England, New Zealand, Scotland, South Africa and Wales (Newfoundland included as part of Canada) in a loose Federation, of which neither of the countries could dominate each other but held in a common union by the crown.

Ah, what if?
Would make a great AH story.
 
Ireland can't really afford to go independent without the industrial north but by 1914 they had concluded they the north would be excluded in some way be it 6 or even 9 counties.
Am I misunderstanding? They actually did go independent without the North IOTL (which did lead to some financial difficulties in the 20's, though the articles I read blamed that more on the Irish Civil War); are you saying that the intervening ten years changed matters, or something else?
Huh... So if things had moved just a bit faster in Ireland, there's a chance that Britain could be too wrapped up in internal matters to take part in the crucial opening stages of WW1?
Excellent point; I wasn't aware of that assessment!
 
Huh... So if things had moved just a bit faster in Ireland, there's a chance that Britain could be too wrapped up in internal matters to take part in the crucial opening stages of WW1?

Yes, and it also played a part inGerman calculations that the Brits would stay out of a continental war.
 
Am I misunderstanding? They actually did go independent without the North IOTL (which did lead to some financial difficulties in the 20's, though the articles I read blamed that more on the Irish Civil War); are you saying that the intervening ten years changed matters, or something else?
When they did setup independent government they IIRC collected £250k donations from Ireland and £5m from private contributions in the US. As Lord Wyclif points out, the north ran at a profit and the south at a loss.
 
If ww1 is avoided could Britain be a lot more willing to fight if rebellion or resistance still rose up? I imagine a Britain unaffected by the war is much more willing to fight and give Ireland attention
 
If ww1 is avoided could Britain be a lot more willing to fight if rebellion or resistance still rose up? I imagine a Britain unaffected by the war is much more willing to fight and give Ireland attention

From what I’ve read, there was another problem, in that significant elements of the British army flat refused to fight the Ulster volunteers if they rebelled, which they said they’d do if Home Rule was implemented.

So I guess it depends on who they’d have to fight.
 
From what I’ve read, there was another problem, in that significant elements of the British army flat refused to fight the Ulster volunteers if they rebelled, which they said they’d do if Home Rule was implemented.

So I guess it depends on who they’d have to fight.

I have heard this before - but given that British troops have fired on / charged at peacefully protesting British Civilians before this period and have generally always obeyed orders - my conclusion is that grumbling and peacetime mutinees is one thing - but when push comes to shove they would fight them if necessary and obey the orders of HMG if that was its will.
 
Ireland can't really afford to go independent without the industrial north but by 1914 they had concluded they the north would be excluded in some way be it 6 or even 9 counties.

The Republic of Ireland from 1922 until it joined the EEC was a backward agricultural state. Many thousands had to leave to England ‘the hated British state’ to gain employment. During the 1980’s there were more Irish passport holders in England than there were people on the whole island Ireland.
There were many in the far right of British politics who wanted the Irish kicked out, giving their jobs to WASP’s and thus wiping out unemployment.

The much vaunted ‘Celtic Tiger’ was only created with EU money and only began to fail when the Eastern European countries joined the EU and finances diverted to boost their economies. The Republic financial difficulties returned and was the first European country to encounter bankruptcy, and only the Bank of England bailed them out.

With all the craic of a new ‘hard border’ back in the day the only way of knowing you had crossed the border was when you left the good roads and began travelling on back lanes.
 
I have heard this before - but given that British troops have fired on / charged at peacefully protesting British Civilians before this period and have generally always obeyed orders - my conclusion is that grumbling and peacetime mutinees is one thing - but when push comes to shove they would fight them if necessary and obey the orders of HMG if that was its will.

Well, my concern is that the UVF would be different, for the general reason that while left-wing radicals usually get put down without a second thought, right-wing radicals are usually treated with kid gloves, not just in Britain, but in most societies throughout history. Compare the fate of the Spartacists with the Nazis post-Beer Hall Putsch, for instance- if Hitler had received similar treatment to Luxemberg, he’d have been lucky to make it to trial, let alone get the slap on the wrist that he received.

Also, the Unionists in Parliament might provide sympathy and political cover that simple strikers or whoever couldn’t count on. To them, Home Rule was a terrible idea, so why punish Ulster for recognizing the obvious?
 
From what I’ve read, there was another problem, in that significant elements of the British army flat refused to fight the Ulster volunteers if they rebelled, which they said they’d do if Home Rule was implemented.

Archibald Wavell was convinced that Asquith & Churchill were “planning to crush the Ulster Protestants.” General Sir Arthur Henry Fitzroy Paget had already drawn up plans to “commence active operations” in Ulster. It was only after lobbying by Field Marshall Roberts to the King and the Sovereign’s intervention that stopped the possible conflict. Regardless of ‘the Curragh Incident’ the Westminster Government we’re going to crush the ‘Protestant Rebellion in the North.’

The most likely out come, judging on the way events since have worked out, I personally think Ulster would’ve been forced to back down.
 
[QUO
The Liberals will probably really push for Home Rule just as they did put it on the Statute Books in Sept 1914. This will probably result in electoral suicide for them in the 1915 General Election.[/QUOTE]

It might or might not be electoral suicide. Elements within the Conservative Party were willing to at various times consider Irish Home Rule within a context of a Federal United Kingdom, including such notable pro-unionists as FE Smith. It is possible that this could have come to pass. and the crisis be resolved
Alternatively if the Liberal policy resulted in the Conservatives supporting an armed uprising or advocating resistance against the British Government it is not certain that this would help the conservatives electorally.
 
The much vaunted ‘Celtic Tiger’ was only created with EU money and only began to fail when the Eastern European countries joined the EU and finances diverted to boost their economies. The Republic financial difficulties returned and was the first European country to encounter bankruptcy, and only the Bank of England bailed them out.
x'Dx'Dx'Dx'D
Are you having a laugh? What are you on about? The UK provided an insignificant part of the total funds and which were in reality a back door fund transfer to RBS through Ulster Bank while avoiding domestic political impact for more funds going into RBS, the idea that "only the bank of England" bailed us out just simply isn't held up in any basic look at the total funds of the bailout and who provided them (and since the UK is the one that refused to take an early repayment I don't see why it should be highlighted), and of course there was more people in the UK with Irish passports when you consider the decades of movement between the islands. As to the Celtic Tiger, no it wasn't created by EU monies as you suggest, nor was it the Eastern Expansion that caused the Crash, it was the minor Global Event along with domestic issues that created it.
 
x'Dx'Dx'Dx'D
Are you having a laugh? What are you on about? The UK provided an insignificant part of the total funds and which were in reality a back door fund transfer to RBS through Ulster Bank while avoiding domestic political impact for more funds going into RBS, the idea that "only the bank of England" bailed us out just simply isn't held up in any basic look at the total funds of the bailout and who provided them (and since the UK is the one that refused to take an early repayment I don't see why it should be highlighted), and of course there was more people in the UK with Irish passports when you consider the decades of movement between the islands. As to the Celtic Tiger, no it wasn't created by EU monies as you suggest, nor was it the Eastern Expansion that caused the Crash, it was the minor Global Event along with domestic issues that created it.
You are quite right the previous post was however typical of some English people who consistently refuse to acknowledge that Ireland is a country and not a dependent part of the UK.
 
You are quite right the previous post was however typical of some English people who consistently refuse to acknowledge that Ireland is a country and not a dependent part of the UK.
In all fairness the only island nation not counting empires of the past to have a really strong steady economy is Japan.
 
Top