Why Gladstone Failed to Pacify Ireland
Gladstone’s adoption of interest in Irish affairs in 1867 puzzled many
of his contemporaries and has continued to puzzle historians. Up
until 1867 Gladstone had shown very little sympathy towards the Irish,
all his life he had held them in contempt, visiting only once. His
‘mission to pacify Ireland’ was surprising and his motives suspect.
Many historians believe that Ireland was a cause through which
Gladstone was to unify his divided party. Others have said that it
was in reaction to the agrarian violence raging through Ireland, it
was clear that something had to be done. Gladstone declared that it
was his ‘high hope and ardent desire’ that Ireland would be united to
Scotland and England by ‘enduring ties of free will and free
affection, peace, order and a settled and cheerful industry’. It is
clear from the situation in Ireland today that Gladstone did not
achieve his highly ambitious and rather idealistic aims. Although
there was no lack of legislation to deal with the ‘Irish Question’ it
seemed to have little effect. However the situation in Ireland was
exceptional, it was plagued by religious differences, social and
political unrest, a stagnant industry and backward farming methods.
Gladstone was faced with a highly challenging and unenviable task; his
commitment to Ireland did not win him popularity in England where
there was a significant amount of Anti-Irish and Anti-Catholic
sentiment. Gladstone was clearly ardently committed to solving the
Irish Question, his failure was certainly not due to lack of
commitment
Gladstone’s first Act was the Irish Church Act of 1869, desig...
... middle of paper ...
...adstone’s ultimate
failure was that he failed, in almost every area of Irish Policy to
produce legislation to satisfy both Irish Protestants and Irish
Catholics, as Tim Hodge points out ‘He failed to recognise that in any
solution to the Irish problem needed to reconcile the interests of
both Catholic and Protestant Ireland[5]’. The Home Rule Bills with
their failure to make special provisions for the province of Ulster
are a prime example of this ignorance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] ‘Great Britain and the Irish Question’ – Paul Adelman
[2] ‘Great Britain and the Irish Question’ – Paul Adelman
[3]‘Great Britain and the Irish Question’ – Paul Adelman
[4]‘Great Britain and the Irish Question’ – Paul Adelman
[5] ‘Parnell and the Irish Question’ – Tim Hodge
It could be argued that Gladstone’s failure to unite his party, during a time when their ultimate support and confidence in his leadership was crucial, was a significant tactical error that contributed heavily towards the failure of the 1886 Home Rule Bill. The results of the 1885 general election were to have a significant impact on the political landscape of Britain; despite winning the most seats, the Liberals did not have an overall majority.As Parnell and the Irish Parliamentry Party (IPP) held the balance...
The Neirsee affair of 1828 revealed that British and French had opposing views on how to handle a situation of immoral circumstances. On one hand British believed that the selling of their citizens was completely unjust while the capturing of the Neirsee had reasoning, so they believed the French were doing this because of the recent defeat the French had suffered in the Napoleonic wars earlier. On the other hand the French believed the British capturing a boat with a French flag was unjust and the whole situation could have been avoided if they had just followed their original agreement, also upsetting to the French was up until 1807 the British had dominated the transatlantic slave trade and had only recently abolished the slave trade and
“In the first years of peacetime, following the Revolutionary War, the future of both the agrarian and commercial society appeared threatened by a strangling chain of debt which aggravated the depressed economy of the postwar years”.1 This poor economy affected almost everyone in New England especially the farmers. For years these farmers, or yeomen as they were commonly called, had been used to growing just enough for what they needed and grew little in surplus. As one farmer explained “ My farm provides me and my family with a good living. Nothing we wear, eat, or drink was purchased, because my farm provides it all.”2 The only problem with this way of life is that with no surplus there was no way to make enough money to pay excessive debts. For example, since farmer possessed little money the merchants offered the articles they needed on short-term credit and accepted any surplus farm goods on a seasonal basis for payment. However if the farmer experienced a poor crop, shopkeepers usually extended credit and thereby tied the farmer to their businesses on a yearly basis.3 During a credit crisis, the gradual disintegration of the traditional culture became more apparent. During hard times, merchants in need of ready cash withdrew credit from their yeomen customers and called for the repayment of loans in hard cash. Such demands showed the growing power of the commercial elite.4 As one could imagine this brought much social and economic unrest to the farmers of New England. Many of the farmers in debt were dragged into court and in many cases they were put into debtors prison. Many decided to take action: The farmers waited for the legal due process as long as them could. The Legislature, also know as the General Court, took little action to address the farmers complaints. 5 “So without waiting for General Court to come back into session to work on grievances as requested, the People took matters into their own hands.”6 This is when the idea for the Rebellion is decided upon and the need for a leader was eminent.
There were many rebellions in the United States history, some peaceful and some violent. Shays' Rebellion in 1786 and the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794 are examples of two brutal rebellions that led to the deaths of many innocent people. Rebellions can develop due to many conditions including unfair laws, in this case the raised taxation of Whiskey, unfair treatment, and disagreements over sensitive topics. The Shays' Rebellion showed the Articles of Confederation was too weak, while the Whiskey Rebellion proved the Constitution to be a strong framework of government.
Is rebellion a childish act, or one that shows maturity? Many would argue the former, but others could claim that rebelling shows a person’s individuality, that they have grown as a person and are not afraid to show it off to the world. In A Separate Peace, John Knowles shows how rebelling can lead to learning from prior mistakes and how breaking free from the crowd can lead to learning who someone truly is. Gene is shown in the novel as a character that follows the rules and does what is expected of him. Finny, on the other hand, rarely follows the rules and is always going against what is expected of him. With the characters and events in A Separate Peace, Knowles shows how he supports the idea of rebellion by having unfortunate events
In 1776, when the United States declared independence from Britain, the new country needed a set of laws to apply to all of the states to replace the earlier British rule. The colonists, however, were concerned that if the United States put too much power in the central government the states rights would vanish. Therefore, the first form of government, the Articles of Confederation, gave too much power to the states and insufficient power to the central government. States could create their own money and refuse federal taxes, which caused many tribulations and almost destroyed the new country. In 1787, delegates from twelve states came together to revise the Articles of Constitution to provide the citizens with a stronger central government. However, instead of revising the Articles, the constitution was formed. The final document the delegates produced provided great compromises and ratification would help save the country from upheaval.
“I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing” (Jefferson). Thomas Jefferson wrote these words in a letter to James Madison after hearing about Shay’s Rebellion while he was a foreign diplomat in Paris. After the rebellion happened, the “Shaysites” as they were called, were labeled as traitors to their country and the democratic form of government. But were they really? Many of the men fighting in the rebellion felt that they were being oppressed just as they had been under British rule.
Lord Liverpool's Government's Responsibility for the Popular Unrest in the Years 1815 - 1821 It is without doubt that the period of Liverpool's government from 1815 to 1821 was one of great civil disturbance. It has been alleged that the period was the closest Britain has ever come to internal revolution with the exception of the civil war. Many historians argue that the unrest, clear in the many violent protests and attempted "uprisings" during the period, was due directly to actions taken, and laws passed by the Tory Cabinet of 1815, but how much of this unrest was caused by factors entirely outside the governments control? Historians consider a vast number of factors to have contributed to the crisis, not all of them the government's fault.
As the American Revolution ended and Americans freed themselves from the British, many Americans were left without money. After the American Revolution was won, the Founding Fathers including John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and lastly our first president George Washington helped create a new government, the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation were the first national government. This government had plenty of weaknesses, such as the need for unanimous votes, no direct power to tax, no ability to raise troops, and they were hard to amend. Along with those weaknesses came several rebellions
I believe in the actions of members of Shays’s Rebellion because they were losing their land. I believe in their actions because if the government stole my land and my money I would revolt as well. I also believe that the government didn’t care about the farmers at all. I know this because they passed 2 acts. One act was the Militia act which stated “If anybody in the militia was to rebel against congress they could be killed.” The other act they passed was the riot act in 1786 which stated, “If 12 or more people rebelled they could be imprisoned, killed, or pay debts.” They had disadvantages as well. One disadvantage was that the farmers had barely any weapons, but the militia did. The militia also stopped Shays’s Rebellion on Governor Bowdoin’s
The Volunteers and The United Irishmen campaigned to achieve Irish equality for two decades. At that point they had achieved many success and were in the process of achieving total equality, ‘Catholic Emancipation’. The bill was put forward and passed through both houses of Parliament. Just as it was to be signed into law, King George III intervened.
The Differences of Gladstone And Disraeli In Their Policies Regarding The British Empire and Foreign Policy
Religion in James Joyce's Dubliners Religion was an integral part of Ireland during the modernist period, tightly woven into the social fabric of its citizens. The Catholic Church was a longstanding tradition of Ireland. In the modernist spirit of breaking away from forces that inhibited growth, the church stood as one of the principal barriers. This is because the Catholic faith acted as the governing force of its people, as portrayed in James Joyce’s Dubliners. In a period when Ireland was trying to legitimize their political system, religious affiliations further disillusioned the political process. The governing body of a people needs to provide a behavioral framework, through its constitution, and a legal process to make delegations on issues of equity and fairness. When religion dominates the government that is in tact, it subjects its citizens to their religious doctrines. In terms of Catholicism in Ireland, this meant that social progress and cultural revolutions were in terms of what the church would allow. The modernist realized that this is what paralyzed the Irish society of the times. In the stories of Dubliners the legal system is replaced by the institute of religion, and it is the presence and social context of the Catholic Church which prevents the Irish community from advancement. ...
McCann et al. Belfast: Institute of Irish Studies, 1994, 95-109).
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (London: 2005). pp. 51, 71-72. Accessed May 3, 2014. http://www.jhud.co.uk/huddleston/uk2005_tcm77-248610.pdf.