How do Butt and Parnell's leadership of the Home Rule Party compare?
This is a tough question to answer as both were signifecant figures within politics at the time I suppose the main difference would be how they came to be politicians on the home rule ticket and ther differing beliefs in how to fight their corners in british politics.
they differ also in the fact that Butt beleived that if they rolled with the flow and rubbed the right people the right way they would get what they wanted.
But Parnell beleived in the obstrution way and was extremely charasmatic he had a way with the people and was a bit of a political rebel.
But this is just and opinion if you want the historical ones then these websites will be of interest to you
Issac Butts and Charles Stewart Parnell were both charismatic leaders with a firm belief in home rule but that is about where their similarities end.
Butts was a firm believer in (as stated above) "rub the right people the right way" and and you will eventually get what you want. To this end he did not support obstructionism or agitation. He also believed that Home Rule was an issue that should stand on its own and never tied it in with any other Irish causes of the day.
Parnell, on the other hand, took a much more aggressive stance believing in both obstruction and agitation. Through his charisma he was able to rise to the top of the Irish Party and under his leadership he relied on the art of obstruction (also called filibustering) to tie up parliament. In addition Parnell was able to gain much deeper support of the people then Butts due to his talent of tying different causes together. One of the greatest causes he supported was land reform. Through his close association with Michael Davitt and the Land League, Parnell took a leading role in the "land wars" that led to many reforms in land ownership and management.
It is worthy to note that Butts did not approve of Parnell's aggressive style, especially his obstruction techniques, which resulted in "bad blood" between the two.