WI: No Irish Home Rule in 1885/86

Thomas1195

Banned
As we know, Gladstone only converted to Home Rule late in 1885. He decided to introduce the First Home Rule Bill, leading to downfall of his government and subsequently defeat in 1886 general election, plus Liberal split.

But what if he never converted, at least during that period, and so no 1885 First Home Rule Bill and maybe no 1886 General Election. What would be the medium- to long-term consequences?
 
The 1885 general election gave the Liberal and allied Independents a majority of 86 seats over the Conservatives, which was the same number as the Irish Nationalists. If there was not a Home Rule Bill in 1886 and no general election that year, then Gladstone would probably wait until 1890 or 1891 to call a general election, which would likely be won by the Tories after ten or eleven years of Liberal government. If there was no Liberal Unionist split, Chamberlain, Hartington and other Liberals would stay in the Liberal Party.

'Gladstone believed a home-rule solution would best come through a bi-partisan measure promoted from the right (thus solving the difficulty of a rejection by the Lords of a bill approved by the Commons).' [1] Though that did not happen, I don't know if a Conservative government would have proposed some measure of limited Home Rule with special provision for Ulster.

[1] See the entry for Gladstone in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.
 
If Gladstone had never mentioned supporting more extensive self-rule for Ireland, Radical Joe might have been able to get his central board scheme approved.
 
I don't think a policy of simply ignoring the Nationalists was going to work long term. Sooner or later if Parnell kept winning significant numbers of seats one of the big two parties would have to talk to him and I think the Liberals were always more likely in that regard because of the anti-landlord stance of the nationalists. As long as the Dominions existed - and thus local autonomy was not some far fetched idea in and of itself - some form of Home Rule would end up being suggested.

Still a 'delay' might see the Liberals try and do what the Conservatives did IOTL and try more 'killing Home Rule with kindness'. That is unlikely to work better for them than it did for the Conservatives but it would be something.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
I don't think a policy of simply ignoring the Nationalists was going to work long term. Sooner or later if Parnell kept winning significant numbers of seats one of the big two parties would have to talk to him and I think the Liberals were always more likely in that regard because of the anti-landlord stance of the nationalists. As long as the Dominions existed - and thus local autonomy was not some far fetched idea in and of itself - some form of Home Rule would end up being suggested.

Still a 'delay' might see the Liberals try and do what the Conservatives did IOTL and try more 'killing Home Rule with kindness'. That is unlikely to work better for them than it did for the Conservatives but it would be something.
Yes, I stated that the Irish Question must be dealt with eventually.

Another question how would the Liberals look like without the Liberal Unionist defection, especially Radical Joe? I mean, right in 1886, Joe's defection IOTL handed Birmingham, which had been one of the Liberals' biggest power base until then (basically Joe's backyard), to the Tories for free. Besides, the Whig defectors also enabled the Tories' complete dominance of the Lords.
 
Without the defection of the Liberal Unionists the Liberals would have done better electorally. The highest number of Liberal Unionists elected was 77 in 1886. The main areas of Liberal Unionist strength were Birmingham, south-west England and Scotland. In Scotland there were more Liberal Unionists and Conservatives elected in 1886 and 1892. It cannot be assumed that in every constituency all the Liberal Unionist vote would have gone to the Liberals. Perhaps Joseph Chamberlain would have become prime minister at the head of a Liberal government. I think the Whigs would have eventually crossed over to the Tories.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Without the defection of the Liberal Unionists the Liberals would have done better electorally. The highest number of Liberal Unionists elected was 77 in 1886. The main areas of Liberal Unionist strength were Birmingham, south-west England and Scotland. In Scotland there were more Liberal Unionists and Conservatives elected in 1886 and 1892. It cannot be assumed that in every constituency all the Liberal Unionist vote would have gone to the Liberals. Perhaps Joseph Chamberlain would have become prime minister at the head of a Liberal government. I think the Whigs would have eventually crossed over to the Tories.
IOTL not just the Whig aristocrats, but also the City bankers like Nathan Rothschild, or many industrialists led Joe Chamberlain also defected.

I think Joe would have succeeded Gladstone. I am not sure how would he lead the party.
 
Top