FROM THE ARCHIVES:Dubliners looked to their personal as well as their political interests in their reaction to the 1912 Home Rule Bill, according to this report.
As was to be expected, the chief topic of conversation in Dublin yesterday was the Home Rule scheme. It was discussed in all its moods and tenses, and from every point of view. Still, it might surprise the casual visitor to the city to note how calmly the citizens as a whole took it. There was nothing in the nature of excitement or tenseness of feeling, such as prevailed on the occasion of Mr. Gladstone’s first Home Rule proposals [in 1886]. The normal routine was not deflected; nor were the ordinary topics of conversation banned or barred. It may be that we as a race have got quite into the groove of “momentous crises,” and that a further installation of that condition only maintains the normal. Or it might be that the people were more indifferent to the occasion than it would suit certain interests to own. Or, again, it might be that there is little expectation of the bill ever becoming the law of the land at all. The last-named is a view shared by a large section of the community – not, by any means, exclusively Unionist.
Still, there was a good deal of unsettlement among certain sections of the community, whose status would be affected by the proposed enactment. Among the staff of the Post Office, for instance, the details of the measure were rather anxiously canvassed. The preponderating feeling in these circles is one by no means favourable to the change proposed. A transfer of the control from the Imperial authority to one having its headquarters in Dublin, offers little fascination to the conscientious workers in the Post Office service, and the business methods of the Dublin Corporation are pointed to as justifying the apprehension. Then the Dublin Metropolitan Police, as a body, view with anything but pleasure the proposed “swopping” [sic] of masters. Even those whose sympathies are Nationalist shake their heads dubiously
In legal circles the views are somewhat mixed. The position of the judiciary has not been dealt with in Mr. Asquith’s [prime minister] speech, and legal interests – especially at the Bar – are at present on the alert for information. The method of appointment of the Judiciary is a question which affects the Bar very much, indeed, and until that is made clear the judgement of that learned profession as to the bill may be said to be “reserved.” The staff at the Four Courts has ere this taken action by memorial with a view to safeguarding their interests; but the measure cannot, under any circumstance, be described as popular among the Four Courts officials.
In the city generally the views expressed as to the bill were demarcated fairly well on party lines. Among Nationalists there was generally speaking approval, but rarely, indeed, in terms of enthusiasm. Unionists, on the other hand, are united and vigorous in their denunciation of the measure