! ! ! The$Price$of$Loyalty:$Southern$Irish$Loyalists$and$the$Work$of$the$Irish$Grants$ Committee$ $ $ $ ! By! Leigh)Ann!Patricia!Coffey! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! A!thesis!submitted!to!the!Graduate!Program!in!History!! in!conformity!with!the!requirements!for!the!! Degree!of!Doctor!of!Philosophy! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Queen’s!University! Kingston,!Ontario,!Canada! Submitted!September!2014! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Copyright@Leigh)Ann!Coffey!2014! ABSTRACT In the years between 1919 and 1923 Ireland experienced significant political and social upheavals, most notably the partitioning of the country and the end of British rule in the south following an armed struggle for independence. The division of Ireland resulted in the creation of political minorities on either side of the border; while unionist Northern Ireland found itself home to a sizable nationalist community, the independent Irish Free State inherited a smaller number of loyalists. Although the nationalist population of Northern Ireland has received considerable attention from historians, until very recently, southern Irish loyalists were largely ignored in the historiography of the Irish Revolution and the Irish Free State. Historians are now demonstrating greater interest in the experiences of southern loyalists, but the loyalist community continues to be defined largely through its relationship with the nationalist majority. This study will consider loyalists on their own terms, using sources originating from the loyalist community. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study was completed with support from a number of institutions and individuals in Canada, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. I am incredibly grateful for the encouragement and advice provided by my supervisors, Professor Donald Harman Akenson (Queen’s University) and Professor David Wilson (University of Toronto). I would also like to thank the other members of my thesis committee: Professor Sandra den Otter, Professor Jeffrey Collins, Professor George Lovell, and Professor Brian Walker (Queen’s University, Belfast). Thanks are also extended to the faculty and staff of the Department of History at Queen’s University for their help with this project, especially the department’s graduate assistant, Yvonne Place. I would like to thank the staff at the National Archives (Kew), the National Library of Ireland, the Public Records Office of Northern Ireland, and the Representative Church Body Library for all of their assistance. The research for this study was funded in part by grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Ontario government. I am indebted to numerous colleagues and friends at Queen’s University, the National University of Ireland Maynooth, and in the Celtic Studies Program at the University of Toronto. A special mention is owed to, among others: Robert Jessop for his technical advice, Melissa Fuerth, Tom Taylor, Dr. Kathleen O’Connell, Dermot and Mairie Dungan, David Dungan, Dr. Marisha Caswell, Dr. Allison Ward, Dr. Samantha Sandassie, Dr. Jennifer Marotta and Greg Breen. This work would not have been possible without the support of my parents, Debra Payne and Michael and Mary Coffey, and my sister, Jaime Coffey. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ii Acknowledgements iii Table of Contents iv List of Tables v Chapter 1: Introducing the “Imperial Irish” 1 Chapter 2: The Public Language of Loyalism in the Irish Free State 47 Chapter 3: Repaying a Debt of Honour: The Political and Financial Implications of Loyalist Narratives 94 Chapter 4: Ordinary Lives, Extraordinary Times: Southern Loyalists and the Irish Civil War, 1921-1923 140 Chapter 5: The Price of Loyalty: Irish Loyalists and Support for the Government of the United Kingdom 203 Chapter 6: Conclusion: Terror and Survival: Vulnerable Minorities in the Interwar Period 262 Bibliography 281 Appendix A: Sampling Method Used for this Study 292 iv LIST OF TABLES Table 4.1: Age and Gender of Applicants in Sample Group 148 Table 4.2: Occupations of Applicants in Sample Group in 1921 155 Table 4.3: Holdings of Known Acreage Occupied by Successful Applicants in Sample Group, 1921 158 Table 4.4: Location of Outrages Committed Upon Applicants in Sample Group 162 Table 4.5: The Distribution of Non-Catholic Population and of Applicants in the Sample Group, By County 163 Table 4.6: Religious Distribution of Applicants in Sample Group 166 Table 4.7: Nature of Outrages Inflicted Upon Applicants in Sample Group 177 v CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCING THE “IMPERIAL IRISH” In November 1923, the Reverend G.A. Chamberlain stood before a congregation that had gathered for the annual Armistice Day service. In the five years since the end of the Great War, Ireland had been transformed by a series of political and social upheavals, most notably the partitioning of the country and the creation of an independent Irish state in the south following a violent conflict between crown forces and Irish revolutionaries. Recognising that his audience was in need of guidance, Chamberlain chose to address the topic of loyalty in his sermon. After discussing loyalty in abstract terms, he turned to the challenges facing those who had supported the government of the United Kingdom. While his congregation might be disillusioned and fear for the future, Chamberlain believed that they now had a clear obligation to support a “lawfully constituted” Irish government, even if they could not bring themselves to “love” it. Democracy had been threatened and the values and ideals associated with the United Kingdom and “Britishness” had been denounced, but as loyal subjects to the crown and as good Christians his audience had a duty to maintain their allegiance to church and state. There was an additional message in his sermon for those who cared to listen carefully. At a time when many were not only questioning their political allegiance but also their sense of identity, Chamberlain’s reference to “We the Imperial Irish” was significant, a suggestion that previous conflicting loyalties might now be reconciled in a hybrid identity, one that emphasised citizenship in both the Irish Free State and the British Empire.1 **** 1 Church of Ireland Gazette, 23 November 1923. Also quoted in Margaret O’Callaghan, “Language, Nationality and Cultural Identity in the Irish Free State, 1922-27: the Irish Statesmen and the Catholic Bulletin Reappraised,” IHS 24, no 94 (November 1984): 232-233. 1 Chamberlain and his congregation were not alone in their struggles to come to terms with the Irish Revolution and its aftermath, nor were conflicted loyalties unique to the southern Protestant population. Intended to transform the Irish into loyal citizens of the United Kingdom, the Act of Union between Britain and Ireland enacted in 1800 had strengthened political, social and economic ties between the two nations over the course of the nineteenth century. Ireland’s elected representatives sat in the parliament at Westminster, the Irish administration in Dublin Castle was accountable to the British cabinet, and symbols of the United Kingdom, such as the crown and the Union Jack, were found throughout the country. The civil service and the armed forces provided employment for many Irish men and women, who were encouraged to see themselves as serving the crown and the empire. The Irish shared the same language with the vast maJority of British people, used the same currency, and had access to the same newspapers and Journals. They could travel freely throughout the empire, and many were in close contact with friends and relatives who had emigrated to England or to colonies such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Although the Union ultimately failed to fully integrate Ireland and its people into Great Britain, and unresolved Irish grievances eventually led to the emergence of a popular nationalist movement, British culture remained deeply embedded in Ireland during the early twentieth century.2 More recently, ties between the British metropole and the rest of its empire had been tested in unprecedented ways with the outbreak of the Great War in 1914. An estimated 2 The bicentennial anniversary of the passing of the Act of Union resulted in a number of studies examining the circumstances surrounding the passing of the act and its political and social legacies; see, for example, Michael Brown, Patrick M. Geoghegan, and James Kelly, eds., The Irish Act of Union 1800: Bicentennial Essays (Dublin: Irish Academic Press, 2003); Patrick Geoghegan, The Irish Act of Union: A Study of High Politics, 1798-1801 (New York: St Martin’s Press, 1999); Daire Keogh and Kevin Whelan, eds., Acts of Union: The Causes, Contexts and Consequences of the Act of Union (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2001); Bruce Stewart, Hearts and Minds: Irish Culture and Society Under the Act of Union (Gerrards Cross: Colin Smyth Ltd., 2002). The successes and failures of the Union are also contemplated in several general histories of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries; see, for example, Paul Bew, Ireland: The Politics of Enmity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007) and Alvin Jackson, Ireland: 1798-1998 (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1999). 2 200,000 Irishmen had served in the British armed forces, while countless men and women had supported the war effort on the home front.3 Individual motives for participating in the war effort were complex and varied, but the sacrifices made by servicemen and their families were frequently understood in the context of British identities and imperial allegiances. The Irish had a duty to come to England’s assistance in her time of need, many argued, and the war brought the close association between the two nations into sharp relief. It is therefore not surprising that the Irish War of Independence (1919-1921), also known as the Anglo-Irish War, and the subsequent political settlement that was eventually enshrined in the Free State Constitution, resulted in some confusion regarding citizenship and political allegiance. In an early response to nationalist unrest, the government had passed the Government of Ireland Act in 1920, which was designed to address Irish nationalist demands for greater political independence without alienating the strongly unionist population in the north.