Defining Liberalism: the first Home Rule crisis in the Scottish capital

2016 ◽  
Vol 67 (1) ◽  
pp. 6-30
Author(s):  
M. K. Thompson

The nature of liberalism was at the heart of the political debate surrounding the first Irish Home Rule bill in Edinburgh. The rhetoric of the campaign was dominated by the fight for the ownership of liberalism, and it was pivotal for all the candidates standing in Edinburgh to present themselves as liberals, and to define their stance on the Irish question by associating it to a core value of liberalism. Democracy and the protection of minorities were the two values used to justify the candidates’ stances on Irish Home Rule, and the perceived threat of Irish Catholicism was often the focus of the associated arguments. The discourse that resulted from this justification centred on a fight to define the essence of liberalism. Therefore, the Irish Home Rule debate in Edinburgh demonstrates that the Liberal split was more nuanced than the traditional assessment of a Whig versus Radical split. Instead, the debate on the Irish question signified the struggle of liberalism.

2003 ◽  
Vol 33 (132) ◽  
pp. 424-451 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph P. Finnan

The Irish question in the form of home rule reasserted itself in British politics during the years 1910-18, first as the central issue in British political debate, then as a secondary, though still significant, concern for Britain during the First World War. One of Britain’s national institutions, Punch, a weekly magazine of political commentary and satire with a circulation of 100,000, reflected the significance of the Irish question by devoting a great deal of attention during these years to the leaders of the two opposing forces in Irish politics, the Irish nationalist leader John Redmond and the Irish unionist leader Sir Edward Carson. Redmond and Carson became regular members of Punch’s leading cast of characters in its political cartoons in the 1910s, a group which included the Liberal premier H. H. Asquith, his leading ministers David Lloyd George and Winston Churchill, and the opposition leader Andrew Bonar Law.


2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 58-74
Author(s):  
Freddy Pignon

When Michael Cusack founded the Gaelic Athletic Association in 1884, the political debate in Ireland was dominated by Home Rule. The creation of the GAA may have found inspiration in the growing nationalist movement led by Charles Stewart Parnell, but the Irish Parliamentary Party may also have been bolstered by the sporting organisation’s ideal of reviving the national identity through the preservation of its traditional games. The GAA undoubtedly conferred legitimacy on the political movement which peaked in December 1885 with a wide electoral success and then with the introduction of the first Home Rule Bill. But Home Rule did not exactly mean the same in sport as in politics. Even though Michael Cusack was not hostile to power sharing with the unionist leaders of existing athletic associations, the failure of his first attempts to democratise Irish sport led him to defend a more radical position implying total separation from his counterparts under British supervision. The Home Rule movement certainly benefited from the GAA’s nationalist and cultural stance to develop Irish consciousness. But the likelihood of self-government was compromised by the own image of the GAA’s administration whose sectarianism and internal disputes over its political nature could hardly convince unionists of their interest to agree with the principle of Home Rule.


Author(s):  
Lindsey Flewelling

Two Irelands beyond the Sea: Ulster Unionism and America, 1880-1920 uncovers the transnational movement by Ireland’s unionists as they worked to maintain the Union with Great Britain during the Home Rule era of Irish history. Overshadowed by Irish-American nationalist relations, this transnational movement attempted to bridge the Atlantic to gain support for unionism from the United States. During the Home Rule era, unionists were anxious about Irish-American extremism, apprehensive of American involvement in the Irish question, and eagerly sought support for their own movement. Two Irelands beyond the Sea explores the political, social, religious, and ethnic connections between Irish unionists and the United States as unionists appealed to Americans for backing and reacted to Irish nationalism. The role of the United States in unionist political thought is also investigated, as unionists used American history, political systems, and Scotch-Irish ethnic traditions to bring legitimacy to their own movement. This examination drives the study of Irish unionism into a new arena, illustrating that Irish unionists were much more internationally-focused than generally portrayed. Two Irelands beyond the Sea challenges our understanding of Irish unionism by revealing the many ways in which unionists reached out to the United States, sought international support, and constructed their own image of America to legitimize the unionist movement.


1982 ◽  
Vol 23 (90) ◽  
pp. 134-173 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Dunne

In the early months of 1882 two of the writers who were to be prominent four years later in opposing Gladstone’s first Irish home-rule bill made similar complaints to correspondents about the state of British public opinion. ‘Less is thought of the Irish question than of the Australian cricketers’, wrote Goldwin Smith; while in characteristic vein, James Fitzjames Stephen waxed choleric about the ‘extravagant idiocy’ of a public obsessed with ‘Jumbo the elephant’, while ignoring ‘one of the most disgusting and brutally dangerous civil wars ever known in these islands’. Each had a particular reason to be preoccupied about Ireland. Smith’s pique was, in part at least, that of the ‘expert’ whose warnings and admonitions had gone unheeded, while Stephen lived part of each year on his small estate in County Louth. However, they also reflected a general concern among politicians and intellectuals which historians have tended to ignore or underestimate — a belief that trends and events in Ireland and the British response to them had serious implications for the future of Britain itself. The recent major study of the home-rule crisis of 1885-6 by Alistair Cooke and John Vincent is remarkable in British historiographical treatment of the Irish question only in the way in which the normal presuppositions are made explicit. Cooke and Vincent argue with admirable clarity, and in remarkable detail, that virtually none of the politicians involved in the crisis were concerned with the ostensible issues of the home-rule policy, each being exclusively concerned instead with exploiting the political crisis which Gladstone’s adoption of the policy (also purely for tactical political reasons) had created. This denial of any importance to ideological differences in political crises is a characteristic of the so-called ‘high politics’ school of historiography, and constitutes perhaps its most serious defect. It is reinforced in the case of the Irish home-rule crisis by the view that, as it was undoubtedly true that few among the political élite cared about Ireland as such, they were equally indifferent to the issues it raised. However, not alone can it be argued that there were important ideological dimensions to most political crises in late nineteenth-century Britain, there is considerable evidence to show that this was particularly true of those involving Irish questions, and of home rule above all.


2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 253-268
Author(s):  
Vincent Chetail

AbstractThe Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration has prompted an intense political debate at both the international and domestic levels. Most controversies focus on its legal stance and highlight the hybrid character of the Compact as a soft-law instrument. While acknowledging the political nature of the Compact, this paper delves into its legal dimensions from the perspective of international law. This inquiry into its normative content discloses three main features: (1) the Compact is not a codification of international legal norms governing migration; it is an instrument of both (2) consolidation and (3) expansion of international law to foster inter-governmental co-operation and promote safe, orderly and regular migration.


2020 ◽  
Vol 62 (2) ◽  
pp. 117-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Salvador Martí i Puig ◽  
Macià Serra

ABSTRACTThe aim of this article is to analyze three key issues in current Nicaraguan politics and in the political debate surrounding hybrid regimes: de-democratization, political protest, and the fall of presidencies. First, it analyzes the process of de-democratization that has been taking place in Nicaragua since 2000. It shows that the 2008 elections were not competitive but characteristic of an electoral authoritarian regime. Second, it reflects on the kind of regime created in Nicaragua under Daniel Ortega’s mandate, focusing on the system’s inability to process any kind of protest and dissent. Third, it examines the extent to which the protests that broke out in April 2018 may predict the early end to Ortega’s presidency, or whether Nicaragua’s political crisis may lead to negotiations between the government and the opposition.


2017 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 192-211
Author(s):  
Lee Michael-Berger

The story of The Cenci’s first production is intriguing, since the play, based on the true story of a sixteenth-century Roman family and revolving around the theme of parricide, was published in 1819 but was denied a licence for many years. The Shelley Society finally presented it in 1886, although it was vetoed by the Lord Chamberlain, and to avoid censorship it had to be proclaimed as a private event. This article examines the political and social context of the production, especially the reception of actress’s Alma Murray’s rendition of Beatrice, the parricide, thus probing the ways in which The Cenci question was reframed, and placed in the public sphere, despite censorship. The staging of the play became the site of a political debate and the performance – an act of defiance against institutionalised power, but also an act of defiance against the alleged tyranny of mass culture.


2001 ◽  
Vol 32 (127) ◽  
pp. 343-364 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Wheatley

In early August 1910 readers of Reynolds’s Newspaper, a radical weekly journal noted as much for its detailed coverage of divorce court proceedings as for its political radicalism (and in 1911 one of the ‘immoral’ English Sunday papers targeted by Irish ‘vigilance committees’), may have perused the weekly political column written by T.P. O’Connor. ‘T.P.’, the M.P. for Liverpool Scotland, was anything but a disinterested columnist, and with John Redmond, John Dillon and Joseph Devlin formed the inner leadership of the Irish Parliamentary Party and Ireland’s nationalist movement.Throughout the political crisis of early 1910 O’Connor had been the main London-based conduit for communications between the Irish Party and Asquith’s cabinet, and in particular Lloyd George and the Liberal chief whip, the Master of Elibank. The outcome of the January 1910 general election, which had given the balance of power in the House of Commons to the Irish nationalists, and John Redmond’s use of that power to force Asquith to act to end the veto powers of the House of Lords over parliamentary legislation, had enhanced both Redmond’s status in Ireland and the importance of home rule as an issue that had to be resolved.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document