On this day in 1886, the House of Commons rejected Gladstone's first great Home Rule Bill, which would have restored an Irish Parliament and government in Dublin.
Years later George V told his prime minister, "What fools we were not to have accepted Gladstone's Home Rule Bill".
"We have arrived at a stage", Gladstone warned, "where two roads part, one from the other". One led to tyranny & war; the other to partnership & self-govt. That became a stock Home Rule image, with Gladstone offering the olive branch of peace & the Tories the manacles of coercion
Home Rule shattered the Liberal Party, creating a new "Liberal Unionist" movt. John Bright declared that "Home Rule means Rome Rule", while Joe Chamberlain warned of "a new foreign country less than 30 miles from our shores, animated with unfriendly intentions towards ourselves".
Gladstone was accused by his opponents of surrendering to Irish terrorism. Riots broke out in Belfast, and loyalists warned that "Ulster will fight, and Ulster will be right".
Even the women's suffrage movt fractured over Home Rule. Millicent Garrett Fawcett & Isabella Tod became staunch Unionists, while Josephine Butler warned of divine punishment if England did not pass Home Rule. The main suffrage journal thought it more important even than the vote
Gladstone urged MPs to "think well, think wisely, think not for the moment, but for the years that are to come" before voting on the bill. Whatever the merits of Home Rule, it's advice govts should consider more often when legislating on UK-Irish relations.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Since it's currently open season on the BBC, it's worth contrasting Priti Patel's remarks with her own government's Integrated Review of Security & Foreign Policy - which has some rather different things to say about the BBC & other institutions under ministerial attack. [THREAD]
2. The Integrated Review describes the BBC (twice) as "the most trusted broadcaster in the world". Its global reach is cited, proudly, as evidence that Britain is a "soft-power superpower", with its "independent" journalism making the UK a champion of "press and media freedom".
3. All that sits a little uneasily with a govt that was boycotting the BBC's main news outlets when the pandemic began, that's cut funding for the World Service & repeatedly accuses the BBC of left-wing bias. But that's one of many paradoxes in the Review. theguardian.com/media/2019/dec…
"In a democracy, the most fundamental of all rights is the right to vote. It is the foundation on which all our liberties depend. Yet for millions of people, compulsory voter ID will make that harder"
More than 3 million UK voters have no official photographic ID. Nearly 11 million have neither a passport nor a driver's licence. Those voters now face new barriers to the ballot box, to tackle a problem for which there is precious little evidence.
In-person voter fraud is not just rare: it would be almost impossible to organise on a large scale. And we would know it was happening, from the number of voters arriving at the polling station to find that their vote had already been cast.
The introduction of the penny post was a major step on the road to democracy, won from government "by the clamour of a nation". As a radical newspaper put it: "The landlords were caught napping when they allowed Rowland Hill to steal a march upon them". [1/5]
Within 10 years, the Royal Mail was carrying 347 million letters a year. Pamphlets & fliers could be sent out at a fraction of the previous cost, transforming the prospects of groups like the Anti-Corn Law League. "The penny postage will repeal the corn laws!", Cobden predicted.
Cheap postage could also be used for advertising, with adhesive "wafers" or stickers bearing political or religious slogans. Millions of envelopes carried slogans from the Anti-Corn Law League, the Peace Society and the anti-slavery movement.
A key point that gets missed in some of the cruder takes on the "Red Wall". Tory success here may owe less to a new electoral phenomenon than an old one: the "property-owning democracy"; but one that's spread unevenly between generations & doesn't map neatly onto class lines. 1/5
2. The idea of a "property-owning democracy" was coined by a Conservative MP, Noel Skelton, in 1923. It recognised that home-ownership was likely to have a fundamental effect on voting behaviour & political values. The same idea inspired the sale of council houses in the 1980s.
3. Yet the spread of home-ownership has taken a peculiar shape. Today, more than half of all UK home-owners are over 55. Ownership rates are lower in affluent cities than in poorer towns. We shouldn't be surprised that this is bending party alignment into very new shapes.
When Gladstone reformed the civil service in 1854, abolishing ministerial patronage, critics called it "an immense stride" towards democracy. They were right: which is why scandals like Greensill, and the return of patronage, are so dangerous. [THREAD] ft.com/content/590367…
2. Before 1854, ministers routinely appointed their friends, business contacts & financial patrons to positions in govt, that came with salaries, access & influence on policy. The Head of the Civil Service, Trevelyan, warned of "a stream of corruption" gushing through public life
3. Gladstone abolished the patronage system, laying the basis for a career civil service recruited by exams. He called this a "parliamentary reform", not just an administrative change, because it weakened corrupt influences, opened govt to talent and made it harder to buy access.
Excellent piece by the @ConUnit_UCL on the "shocking" collapse of parliamentary govt over the last year. Five changes, in particular, "amount to a fundamental undermining and exclusion of parliament from crucial decisions". Some extracts follow. [1/9] constitution-unit.com/2021/04/21/cov…
1. Emergency Legislation. The far-reaching Coronavirus Act was rushed through Parliament in a single day. "In the year since it was passed, ministers have provided just five hours debating time for MPs to consider ongoing measures", with speeches limited to just 4 minutes each.
2. Radical new laws, "shutting down businesses, forcing people to stay at home, imposing hotel quarantines or mandatory testing", have routinely been made by Statutory Instruments, issued by ministers without parliamentary scrutiny, even when there was no immediate time pressure.