Parnell, Charles Stewart (1846–1891)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Weihman
Keyword(s):  
Home Rule ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
Liberal Party ◽  
Tenant Farmer ◽  
Tenant Farmers

Charles Stewart Parnell was the first president of the Irish Land League (1879) and the leader of the Irish Parliamentary Party (1879–1891). Born to a Protestant landowning family in County Wicklow, Parnell was first elected to the House of Commons as a Home Rule League MP in 1875. Throughout his career, Parnell sought limited Home Rule for Ireland and a constitutional end to tenant farmer agitation through compromises with the English Liberal party. The Kilmainham Treaty, negotiated by the imprisoned leaders of the Land League in April 1882, secured both rent concessions for tenant farmers and the release of Parnell and other Land League leaders from Kilmainham Gaol.

Home rule and the liberal party, 1899–1906

1963 ◽  
Vol 13 (52) ◽  
pp. 316-348 ◽  
Author(s):  
H.W. McCready
Keyword(s):  
Party Politics ◽  
Home Rule ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
Liberal Party ◽  
Financial Measures ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
History Of ◽  
Liberal Reform ◽  
The Commons ◽  
Pros And Cons

Gladstone’s dramatic commitment of the liberal party to a policy of home rule for Ireland in 1886 was followed by the Grand Old Man’s two attempts at turning his policy into legislation. The first home rule bill, that of 1886, was defeated in the house of commons and then in a general election: the second, that of 1893, was overwhelmed in the house of lords and then dropped by Gladstone’s fourth government. Though the Gladstonian commitment remained and the liberal party continued to be a home rule party — and though the pros and cons of the union of 1800 remained the major structural feature of British party politics — it was not until 1912 that the liberals did anything further about their major Irish policy. For most of the period 1893-1912 they were, of course, impotent in opposition and consequently in no position to take the initiative on home rule. In 1906, however, they won a landslide victory over their unionist opponents and it is striking that this electoral victory and the great impulse it gave to one of the most dynamic governments in the whole history of British liberalism was not followed, as had the last two liberal victories under Gladstone, by the introduction of a third home rule bill. Had the liberal landslide of 1906 been put behind another home rule measure the whole history of the matter would certainly have been radically different. The house of lords would have been easily overwhelmed; the great advance in constitutional reform for Ireland would have been carried in a spirit of liberal reform rather than of political surrender; the development of Sinn Fein would have been frustrated or at least diverted. But the liberal victory of 1906 was not so used. Home rule was postponed and sidetracked and was taken up again only when the liberal party once more desperately needed Irish votes in the budget election which followed the rejection of Lloyd George’s financial measures by the lords in November 1909. The home rule banner was hoisted afresh by Asquith, the prime minister, in his Albert Hall speechof 10 December 1909 and the third home rule bill appeared in due course in 1912 in direct — and significant — succession to the budget and the parliament act for both of which the Asquith government needed Irish support in the commons.

Neville Chamberlain, 1869 - 1940

1941 ◽  
Vol 3 (10) ◽  
pp. 731-734
Keyword(s):  
British Politics ◽  
Home Rule ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
Financial Loss ◽  
Liberal Party ◽  
The Bahamas ◽  
Two Generations ◽  
The University ◽  
Short Time

There were, in two generations, three Chamberlains in the first rank of British politics. Joseph, the greatest of them in personality and in the special gifts that qualify for the highest success in public life, would almost certainly have succeeded Gladstone in the leadership of the Liberal party had they not separated in 1886 on the question of Home Rule for Ireland. O f his two sons, Austen was educated for a public career and Neville for business. Austen twice, of deliberate choice, declined a course that might and probably would have led to the Premiership. It was to the younger son Neville that the great prize came, though he had no Parliamentary ambitions during the larger part of his life, and did not enter the House of Commons till he was within a few months of fifty. He did not go to the university as Austen had done but, on leaving Rugby, returned to his home in Birmingham and, after a short time at Mason College, entered an accountants’ office. In 1890 his father bought land in the Bahamas for the cultivation of sisal which, he was advised, would produce the best quality of hemp. Neville went out at the age of twenty-one to take charge of the estate. He lived plain and worked hard for seven years and then had to admit failure. The soil was too thin and, after heavy financial loss, the enterprise was abandoned.

Isaac Butt and the Home Rule Movement: A Study in Conservative Nationalism

1960 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 72-95
Author(s):  
Lawrence J. McCaffrey
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Political Party ◽  
Balance Of Power ◽  
British History ◽  
The Political ◽  
Home Rule ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
Liberal Party ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Eventual Collapse

The formation of the Irish Home Rule movement was a significant factor in influencing subsequent Irish and British history. Irish Federalism produced a political party that often controlled the balance of power in the House of Commons; split the Liberal party on the question of Irish self-government, a prelude to its eventual collapse; secured extensive agrarian reform for Irish tenant farmers, the first serious blow to traditional property rights in the British Isles; and was instrumental in destroying the political power of the House of Lords.

‘Parnellism And Crime’, 1887–90

1974 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 123-140
Author(s):  
F. S. L. Lyons
Keyword(s):  
Home Rule ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
Liberal Party ◽  
Nationalist Party ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Future ◽  
History Of

The Home Rule crisis of 1885–86 is generally held to mark a water-shed in the history of Anglo-Irish relations. This it undoubtedly does, though not necessarily for the reasons commonly advanced. The crisis was certainly important in the sense that it obliged the Liberal and Conservative parties to define their attitudes towards Irish self-government and thus to demonstrate to the Irish nationalist party in the House of Commons that their main hope for the future lay with Mr Gladstone and those Liberals who had remained faithful to him after his declaration in favour of Home Rule. But the course of events during 1886 demonstrated just how far the Irish demand still was from being met. The inadequacies of the Home Rule Bill itself, the split in the Liberal party, the firm negative of the Conservatives, the violence of the Ulster Protestant reaction, the veto of the House of Lords which had not even to be deployed in 1886 but was there for future use when necessary—all these things suggested that Home Rule, if it came at all, would not happen overnight at the waving of any Parnellite wand, but would require years, perhaps decades, of labour before it came within sight of achievement.

John Redmond and federalism in 1910

2001 ◽  
Vol 32 (127) ◽  
pp. 343-364 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Wheatley
Keyword(s):  
Balance Of Power ◽  
Political Crisis ◽  
The Political ◽  
Home Rule ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
Nationalist Movement ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Court Proceedings ◽  
Weekly Journal ◽  
Political Radicalism

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.

The Irish War of Independence and The Irish Civil War

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Weihman
Keyword(s):  
World War I ◽  
Late Nineteenth Century ◽  
Home Rule ◽  
Liberal Party ◽  
Irish Republican Army ◽  
War Of Independence ◽  
The Third ◽  
The North ◽  
Guerrilla War ◽  
The United Kingdom

The Irish War of Independence (Irish: Cogadh na Saoirse), also known as the Anglo–Irish War, began in January 1919 as a guerrilla war waged by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against the British Government. Ireland was formally a part of the United Kingdom as a result of the passing of the Acts of Union in 1800. In the late-nineteenth century, the Irish Parliamentary Party, led by Charles Stewart Parnell (1846–1891), advocated home rule for Ireland through cooperation with the Liberal Party in the English Parliament, but it was unsuccessful until the Third Home Rule Bill of 1912. This bill provoked Unionists in the north of Ireland to form the Ulster Volunteers, who feared a predominantly Catholic Irish Parliament in Dublin. In response, Nationalists formed the Irish Volunteers. The Third Home Rule Bill never took effect because of the outbreak of World War I; Irish troops fought with England in the war with the promise that home rule would be granted at the conflict’s end.

Home Rule, Radicalism, and the Liberal Party, 1886-1895

1974 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 66-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas William Heyck
Keyword(s):  
Working Class ◽  
Social Reform ◽  
Recent Article ◽  
British History ◽  
Political Transformation ◽  
Home Rule ◽  
Liberal Party

In 1887, Joseph Chamberlain wrote a letter toThe Baptistin which he blamed the preoccupation of Liberals and Radicals with Home Rule for delaying social reform. “Thirty-two millions of people,” he complained, “must go without much-needed legislation because three millions are disloyal.” Early in the 1890s, socialists and militant working-class spokesmen sometimes took up this cry to express their discontent with the Liberal party. And in later years, the Liberal-Radical commitment to Home Rule provided one of the main historical explanations for the founding of an independent working-class party; thus the dampening of Radicalism supposedly caused by Home Rule has been regarded as the source of the most important political transformation of recent British history. In the words of G. D. H. Cole:With Chamberlain's departure, and with the increasing preoccupation of Gladstone with Home Rule, the Radical impulses of the 'seventies had died away. Some attempt was made to revive them when it had become plain that Liberalism was in serious danger of losing its working-class support. But the attempt was made too late, and the Liberal ‘Newcastle Programme' of 1892 was only a very pale shadow of Chamberlain's ‘Unauthorized Programme’ of 1885.D. A. Hamer, in a recent article, takes essentially the same view, with some modifications. The Liberals, he says, took up Home Rule in a deliberate attempt to paper over confusion and disagreement within the party over other policies. In the 1880s, the Liberal party tended to be dominated by “faddists,” who could not agree on the precedence to be given various reform proposals.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document