|
John Bruton Calls for Commemoration of 1914 Home Rule Act
Bruton’s Speech
| ‘Home Rule of greater significance than 1916 blood lust’, in Irish Independent (5 Aug. 2014), “Comment” - available online. |
In 2016, there will be extensive commemoration of the centenary of the 1916 Rising.
No comparable commemoration is planned for an earlier centenary, that of 18 September 2014, the 100th anniversary of the passage into law of Home Rule for Ireland.
The events of Easter 1916 inaugurated an armed struggle, with many casualties, which continued until 1923.
In contrast, the enactment of Home Rule was achieved by peaceful parliamentary means, without any casualties.
Winning Home Rule for Ireland involved overcoming huge obstacles and prejudices.
There was deep-seated anti-Catholic prejudice to be overcome in both the Conservative and Liberal Parties in Britain 100 years ago. There was an underlying assumption in some quarters that the Catholic Irish could not be trusted to govern themselves, or to respect the property rights of the Protestant minority in southern Ireland. This prejudice had strong support in the upper reaches of the British Army.
Also ranged against Home Rule were the Ulster Unionists, who had armed themselves in the Ulster Volunteer Force, with little or no interference from the government. Their goal was to prevent Home Rule.
Another obstacle was the House of Lords, which had a veto on all legislation, and where there was an overwhelming majority against Home Rule. This could only be overcome by removing this veto.
In a masterly exercise of parliamentary leverage and constructive opportunism, Irish Parlimentary Party leaders John Redmond and John Dillon overcame all these obstacles in a very short space of time.
They withheld support for the 1909 Budget, unless and until there was a commitment to remove the Lords veto and introduce Home Rule.
All this was achieved by a minority party, albeit a party whose votes were needed to avoid a general election which the Liberal government feared they would lose. Considerable brinksmanship was needed, because, if the Liberals lost the election then the cause of Home Rule would also be lost. Redmond and Dillon played the cards they had very well indeed.
Home Rule became law on 18 September 1914. Its implementation was simply postponed for the duration of World War I, which had broken out a month previously.
There is no doubt but that it would have come into effect once the war was over, either for the whole of Ireland, or, more likely, for 26 or 28 counties, if the Home Rule policy had not been rejected by the Irish electorate in the 1918 election.
The irreversibility of Home Rule, once it was passed in 1914, is well illustrated by a comment that was made by one of its staunchest opponents, the Conservative leader Andrew Bonar Law. He had admitted: “If Ulster, or rather any county, had the right to remain outside the Irish Parliament, for my part my objection would be met”.
The Lloyd George Coalition Government’s 1918 re-election manifesto stated bluntly: “Home Rule is upon the statute book.” There was no going back on it.
This is glossed over by those who supported the use of physical force in 1916.
Instead of launching a policy of abstention from Parliament and a guerrilla war, Sinn Fein and the IRA could have used the Home Rule Act as a peaceful stepping stone to dominion status and full independence, in the same way as Treaty of 1921 was eventually to be used.
Home Rule would also have been a better deal for Northern Nationalists, for two reasons. Any part of Ulster excluded from Home Rule was to have been under direct rule from Westminster, and there would have been some limited continuing Southern representation in the House of Commons. Both of these factors would have ensured that the discriminatory regime that was inaugurated in Stormont would not have been possible.
Commemorations are about drawing relevant lessons for today’s generation, from the work of past generations.
The remarkable exercise of parliamentary leverage, to achieve Home Rule against entrenched resistance, has greater relevance to today’s generation of democrats, than does the blood sacrifice of later years.
It deserves to be commemorated by all Irish people who believe that exclusively non-violent agitation is the best way to achieve justice in divided societies. |
| Accessed 14.08.2014. |
[ top ]
Sundry Reports
| James O’Shea, ‘1916 Easter Rising made Irish violent, says former Irish leader’, in Irish Central (2 July 2014) |
He was speaking in London at a conference on the 1914 Home Rule Act passed by the British houses of parliament but never enacted.
People must consider the damage to the Irish psyche, Bruton said of the Easter Rising.
"If there hadn’t been the introduction of violence into nationalism in that demonstrably dramatic fashion then there wouldn’t have been a Civil War," Bruton said.
He also slammed Irish Republican hero Patrick Pearse, saying his bent towards violence had later been used to justify the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA).
“I read what Pearse had said about violence, he praised the Ulster Volunteers (armed loyalists)…saying this was a great day that they were armed. He couldn’t have been more wrong,” Bruton said.
The event was originally meant to be held at the House of Commons Speaker’s residence, but John Bercow refused to allow Sinn Fein saying they had refused to take their seats in the House of Commons.
It was held at the Irish Embassy instead. |
| Available online. |
[ top ]
| Ronan McGreevy, ‘John Bruton calls on Irish Government to commemorate passage of Home Rule Act’, in The Irish Times (4 Aug. 2014). |
Sub-heading: The Easter Rising and subsequent War of Independence were “completely unnecessary” because Home Rule was already on the statute books, former taoiseach John Bruton has said.
Mr Bruton has called on the Government to commemorate the centenary of the passage into law of the Home Rule Bill on September 18th, 1914. It was intended the law be brought into force at the end of the first World War, which broke out, from a British and Irish point of view, 100 years ago today. In his detailed submission to the Government, Mr Burton said the violence of that period “should not be retrospectively justified in the other commemorations that are to be undertaken over the next 10 years”.
He reiterated a case he made in a recent debate at the Irish Embassy in London that, “Ireland could have achieved better results, for all the people of the island, if it had continued to follow the successful non-violent parliamentary Home Rule path, and had not embarked on the path of physical violence, initiated by the IRB and the Irish Citizen Army in Easter Week of 1916” .
“Sinn Féin and the IRA should have used the Home Rule Act as a peaceful stepping stone to dominion status and full independence in the same way as the Treaty of 1921 was so used, but only after so much blood had been shed,” he wrote.
|
| Available online. |
[ top ]
| James O’Shea, ‘Former Irish leader slams Easter 1916 Rising commemorations’, in Irish Central (4 Aug. 2014) |
Former Irish leader John Bruton has restated his opposition to commemorating the Easter 1916 Rising saying the Rising and War of Independence were “completely unnecessary” because Irish Home Rule was already on the statute books although suspended.
He called on the government to instead mark the centenary of the Home Rule bill being placed on the Westminster Statute Book on September 18, 1914 though it was later suspended because of Northern unionist opposition and the outbreak of the First World War
He said the violence of that period “should not be retrospectively justified in the other commemorations that are to be undertaken over the next 10 years.”
“Ireland could have achieved better results, for all the people of the island, if it had continued to follow the successful non-violent parliamentary Home Rule path, and had not embarked on the path of physical violence, initiated by the IRB and the Irish Citizen Army in Easter Week of 1916.”
“Sinn Féin and the IRA should have used the Home Rule Act as a peaceful stepping stone to dominion status and full independence in the same way as the Treaty of 1921 was so used, but only after so much blood had been shed,” he wrote. |
| Available online. |
[ top ]
| Daniel McConnell, ‘Home Rule milestone “should be celebrated”’, in Irish Independent (4 Aug. 2014). |
Sub-heading: Former Taoiseach John Bruton has called on the State to commemorate the centenary of the Irish Home Rule Bill.
Mr Bruton is seeking some formal marking of the 100-year anniversary of the passage of the bill through the House of Commons in 1914 and of the achievements of Irish leader, John Redmond (pictured).
Mr Bruton has made a submission to Taoiseach Enda Kenny, Tánaiste Joan Burton, Arts Minister Heather Humphreys and Foreign Affairs Minister Charlie Flanagan seeking to have the milestone celebrated. The bill was passed into law on September 18, 1914 and Mr Bruton has described it as an irreversible milestone in Irish history.
He said: “For the first time since 1800, Irish legislative independence had been conceded by the UK. On 18 September 1914, Redmond achieved what neither O’Connell, Butt nor Parnell achieved.”
Despite its passage, Irish Home Rule was suspended for what was expected to be a short war in Europe. Its implementation remained policy throughout the war and after it, Mr Bruton has argued.
“Its passage was achieved by peaceful, but tough, negotiating tactics and is therefore more relevant to modern Irish realities and prospects than the other anniversaries to be remembered later,” he said. |
| Available online. |
|