DOCSLIB.ORG

Lloyd George and the Partition of Ireland

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lloyd George and the Partition of Ireland 1916 – 1921 Roy Douglas analyses Lloyd George’s answer to the Irish Question after the Easter Rising. LloydLloyd GeorgeGeorge andand thethe PartitionPartition ofof IrelandIreland ong before , Irish attitudes to Home Neither side liked this compromise, and by the sum- Rule had come to follow closely the divi mer the country appeared to stand on the brink of L sions, not of social class or perceived eco- civil war. As a last desperate effort to avert conflict, a nomic interest, but of religion. Practically every Conference of leaders of the principal British and Catholic was a Home Ruler, the vast majority of Irish parties was convened at Buckingham Palace. Protestants were Unionists. Ever since the s, an On July the Conference broke down, and the off-and-on alliance had existed between Irish Na- Cabinet met in an atmosphere of high crisis to de- tionalists and Liberals, in support of Irish Home bate Ireland. When the discussion had been pro- Rule. ‘Home Rule’, like many expressions in poli- ceeding for some time, Foreign Secretary Sir tics, did not always mean the same thing, but it cer- Edward Grey reported the ultimatum which Austro- tainly included establishment of an Irish parliament Hungary had just issued to Serbia, warning his col- and executive in Dublin. The only large part of Ire- leagues that ‘it may be the prelude to a war in which land which was overwhelmingly Protestant was at least four of the great Powers might be involved’. north-east Ulster, and there the popular opposition Three days later, the risk of international conflict to Home Rule was every bit as strong as was support had increased, but so deep was the general concern in the rest of the country. But although, in theory, over Ireland that events in Dublin were still at the everybody in politics was either for or against setting top of the Cabinet’s agenda. up a new Home Rule authority for the whole of When Britain went to war with Germany on Ireland, in practice by many people on both August, a few Liberal and Labour MPs wisely and sides of the great divide were groping towards a so- courageously resisted the government’s decision to lution through which the Protestant areas of Ulster fight. Irish MPs, by contrast, were unanimous in sup- would receive different treatment from the rest of port: both the main body of Nationalists who fol- Ireland, at least in the short term. lowed John Redmond, and the ‘Independent Na- As Jeremy Smith describes elsewhere in this issue, tionalists’ from Munster who looked to William during the course of the Liberal government O’Brien and the Unionists alike. As far as this could forced its Home Rule Bill – the Government of Ire- decently be done, the Home Rule question was land Bill – through parliament, against furious oppo- swept under the carpet. On September, the King sition from Conservatives (or, to give them their signed the Home Rule Bill and also signed a new preferred name in this period, ‘Unionists’). The Bill Suspensory Bill which delayed its operation until was awaiting the formal signature of the King. The the end of the war. Yet – as one distinguished Irish new measure would set up an Irish Parliament with historian has reflected – ‘the Irish problem had been limited powers. The break from Great Britain would refrigerated, not liquidated. Nothing had been not be absolute, and some Irish MPs would continue solved, and all was still to play for.’ to sit at Westminster. A concession had been made to In May , the first Coalition government was the ‘separateness’ of the northern Protestant areas by established. Asquith remained Prime Minister and the a provision under which the six most Protestant Ul- Liberals still provided a majority of the Ministers. ster counties would be excluded from the Home Conservatives and Labour were brought into the gov- Rule authority for six years, but would then revert ernment, and so was Sir Edward Carson – born and automatically to union with the rest of the country. educated in Leinster, and MP for Dublin University, Journal of Liberal Democrat History 33 Winter 2001–02 23 yet acknowledged leader of the Ulster the war lasted, his concern was to en- he stood was similar to that of Sinn Unionists who had been such a thorn in sure the most efficient prosecution of Fein. Thereafter Sinn Fein advanced the government’s side before the war. the war. Once the war was over he rapidly, winning a further five by-elec- Attempts were made to include John sought to produce a durable settlement tions in and . Redmond as well, but these failed. in Ireland (whatever that settlement As Prime Minister, Lloyd George In April , the ‘Easter Week Ris- might happen to be), but he may have did not abandon his quest for an Irish ing’ took place in Dublin. The rebels, been even more anxious to keep his settlement. In May , he renewed with no recognisable authority from own government on an even keel. his offer to Redmond for immediate anybody, proclaimed an ‘Irish Repub- When his investigations were com- Home Rule for the twenty-six coun- lic’, and seized control of various build- plete, Lloyd George proposed immedi- ties, without success. In July, a Conven- ings. These rebels were often, though ate application of Home Rule legisla- tion of Irishmen of various persuasions inaccurately, described as ‘Sinn Fein’, tion to the twenty-six Catholic south- was set up, to try to evolve a solution. from the name of an extreme move- ern counties, while the six Protestant Sinn Fein refused to participate, which ment which sought to destroy all politi- northern counties would be excluded. considerably weakened its authority. cal links between Ireland and Great Whether this exclusion was to be per- Then in March , John Redmond Britain. The military were able to re- manent or temporary was uncertain – died from an operation which nobody establish control without too much dif- Redmond was given to understand one had expected to present serious risks. ficulty. In the aftermath, the leaders of thing, Carson was promised the other. So the most experienced, and perhaps the rising were tried in secret by courts- Both men were prepared to accept the the most responsible, Irish politician martial, and no fewer than ninety people arrangement as they understood it, but was suddenly removed from the scene. were condemned to death. both had great difficulty in selling it to He was succeeded as Nationalist leader Some days before any executions their followers. Part of the difficulty by John Dillon. were carried out, John Dillon, more or with any arrangement of this kind was In the same month, while the Con- less Redmond’s second-in-command, that no line could be drawn which did vention was still sitting, the government wrote from Dublin to his leader that ‘so not leave many people on the ‘wrong’ faced a different and even graver prob- far feeling of the population of Dublin side of the proposed border. Northern lem. Russia had collapsed, and the is against the Sinn Feiners. But a reac- Catholics and southern Protestants Treaty of Brest-Litovsk gave the Cen- tion might very easily be created’. alike were aggrieved. Unionists in the tral Powers huge swathes of Russian Dillon went on to urge that ‘the wisest government, notably Walter Long and territory. In the west, the Germans course is to execute no-one for the Lord Lansdowne, waged a bitter war launched their spring offensive, which present.’ To anyone with a sense of against the settlement, while Lloyd at one moment seemed to threaten a Irish history, the wisdom of that advice George threatened resignation if it was similar result in France and Belgium. In was obvious, and Redmond did his not accepted. In the end, the contradic- desperate straits, Lloyd George’s gov- best. In the end, however, fifteen of the tory nature of Lloyd George’s promises ernment began to plan a great exten- rebels were shot. The contrast with the was appreciated by the Irish, and the sion of conscription in Britain, where it wise clemency with which DeWet’s whole thing collapsed – without Lloyd had already existed for a couple of rebels in South Africa had been treated George or anybody else resigning. years. The government also gave earlier in the war is sharp. A few months later, in December thought to the ideal of applying con- Asquith promptly visited Ireland to , Lloyd George became Prime scription to Ireland, which had escaped examine the situation on the spot. On Minister of a reconstituted Coalition it thus far. his return, he entrusted to the ever-re- government. The new Ministry, unlike There were anguished debates in the sourceful Lloyd George the task of en- its predecessor, did not include either Cabinet about the likely effects of Irish gineering a political settlement that Asquith or his closest followers, and the conscription, and various men who might somehow repair the damage. Prime Minister’s dependence on Un- were not Cabinet members were in- Like the rest of his party, Lloyd George ionist support was obvious. vited to give their own views on the was a Home Ruler; but, as has been Meanwhile, the situation in Ireland matter. Broadly, the military men ad- noted, ‘the cause of Irish home rule was was deteriorating rapidly. Irish people vised in favour, whilethose who were never one that roused (his) enthusiasm who would have rejoiced at Home concerned with preserving peace in or fighting spirit, nor was he particu- Rule a couple of years earlier were Ireland advised against.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Belfast & Lisburn Expulsions, 1920
    Reflections on Centenaries & Anniversaries (Discussion 2) The Belfast & Lisburn Expulsions, 1920 Guest Speaker Author & Historian Dr. Brian Hanley, Dublin compiled by Michael Hall ISLAND 127 PAMPHLETS 1 Published October 2020 by Island Publications 132 Serpentine Road, Newtownabbey BT36 7JQ © Brian Hanley/Michael Hall 2020 [email protected] http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/islandpublications Published by The Fellowship of Messines Association This publication has received financial support from the Northern Ireland Community Relations Council which aims to promote a pluralist society characterised by equity, respect for diversity, and recognition of interdependence. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the Community Relations Council. Printed by Regency Press, Belfast 2 Introduction The Fellowship of Messines Association was formed in May 2002 by a diverse group of individuals from Loyalist, Republican and other backgrounds, united in their realisation of the need to confront sectarianism in our society as a necessary means to realistic peace-building. In 2020 the Association launched its ‘Reflections on Centenaries & Anniversaries’ programme. This programme would comprise a series of discussions which were intended to create opportunities for participants, from various backgrounds and political viewpoints, to engage in discussion on some of the more significant historical events of 100 years and 50 years ago, the consequences of which all of us are still living with today. The discussions would also afford an opportunity
    [Show full text]
  • Nationalists (IRA, PIRA, Sinn Fein)
    ⬜ POPULATION ⬜ GOVERNMENT ◼ 1.9 million (density 339/sq.mi) ◼ Member of the UK ▫ Michigan=9.9 million (England, Wales, (density=174/sq.mi) ▫ Roughly 30% of the island Scotland, and NI) of Ireland’s population ◼ A devolved government ◼ Capital = Belfast within a constitutional ◼ Ethnic Composition ▫ 99.1% White (with 91.0% monarchy (Elizabeth II) Northern Ireland born) ◼ Legislature ⬜ ECONOMY ▫ After several decades of ▫ Northern Ireland deindustrialization, Assembly located in economy is making a strong recovery resulting from the Belfast “peace dividend” of recent ▫ Since Good Friday years Agreement (1998) it has been largely self-governing in most internal matters. ⬜ Internationally, NI is probably best known as the site of a violent ethnic, sectarian, nationalist, and political conflict – the Troubles – between the ◼ Nationalists (IRA, PIRA, Sinn Fein) who see themselves as Irish and are predominantly Roman Catholic, and the ◼ Unionists (UDA), who consider themselves British and are predominantly Protestant ▫ (additionally, there are also people from both sides who consider themselves as Northern Irish) ◼ Simply put, the unionists want NI to remain as part of the UK (“loyalists”), while the nationalists want NI to reunify with the Republic of Ireland, independent of British rule (“republicans”) ◼ Since 1998, nearly all of the paramilitary groups involved in the Troubles (e.g. IRA and UDA) have ceased their armed campaigns. •The Plantation of Ulster refers to the organized colonization of Ulster – a province in northern Ireland– by Protestants from Scotland and England. •Private plantation by wealthy landowners began in 1606, while official plantation controlled by the Parliament of Scotland began in The counties of Ulster (modern 1609.
    [Show full text]
  • And the Limits of Ulster Unionism
    University of Plymouth PEARL https://pearl.plymouth.ac.uk Faculty of Arts and Humanities School of Society and Culture 2016-06-01 Partition, postal services and Ulster unionist politics 192127 Fitzpatrick, C http://hdl.handle.net/10026.1/6730 International Journal of Regional and Local History Taylor & Francis All content in PEARL is protected by copyright law. Author manuscripts are made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the details provided on the item record or document. In the absence of an open licence (e.g. Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher or author. 1 This is an accepted manuscript of an article published by Taylor and Francis, in International Journal of Regional and Local History, 1 June 2016 DOI 10. 1080/20514530.2016.1182388 Acceptance date: 16 Feb 2016 ‘Partition, postal services and Ulster unionist politics 1921-27’ Dr. Claire Fitzpatrick University of Plymouth [email protected] Abstract This article examines the origins and development of the notion of an ‘all-red’ mail route policy in Northern Ireland in the years 1921-27 and what it reveals about the fractious nature of Ulster Unionism, its attitude to partition, and the construction of a separate Ulster identity. It explores the effects of partition on the notions of space and identity in Ireland, as well as how it affected the notion of a state under siege. Drawing on the largely untapped material in the British Postal Museum Archives, cabinet papers, parliamentary debates and local and national newspapers, it aims to contribute to current historiography of Northern Ireland and Ulster unionism in the 1920s by looking at the ways local and sectional interests affected official policy, its attitudes to the Irish Free State and partition, and the more tangential debate concerning both 2 unionist and nationalist perceptions of Northern Ireland’s identity.
    [Show full text]
  • ¿•O, Z0T7 National University of Ireland Maynooth the IMPACT OF
    ¿•O, Z 0 T 7 National University of Ireland Maynooth THE IMPACT OF THE PARTITION CRISIS ON CAVAN AND MONAGHAN,1914-1926. by JOHN ANTHONY DONOHOE THESIS FOR THE DEGREE OF M.A. DEPARTMENT OF MODERN HISTORY NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND MAYNOOTH HEAD OF DEPARTMENT: Professor R.V. Comerford Supervisor of Research: Dr. Denise Dunne July 1999. TABLE OF CONTENTS. page Abbreviations ii Acknowledgements iii Introduction 1-6 Chapter One The Partition question, 1912-1919. 7-34 Chapter Two The imposition of Partition and sectarian warfare, 35-70 1919-1921. Chapter Three The Belfast boycott and the Treaty, 1920 -1922. 71-97 Chapter Four The Border wars and the Civil war, 1922-1923. 98-122 Chapter Five The imposition of the Customs barrier and the findings of the Boundary Commission, 1923 - 1925. 123-161 Conclusion 162-167 Appendices 168-176 Bibliography 177 The impact of the partition crisis on Cavan and Monaghan, 1914-1926. The aim of this thesis is to illustrate the impact of partition on the border counties of Cavan and Monaghan in the period 1914 to 1926. Partition had a profound impact on this region in political, economic and social terms. People from all walks of life in the region were adversely affected by the partition of Ireland which was brought about by the Government of Ireland Act of December 1920. The period 1914-1920 which witnessed the imposition of partition was extremely fraught in Cavan and Monaghan as tensions mounted between nationalists and unionists over the regions future. This work examines these tensions and shows how sectarian animosities built up in the region.
    [Show full text]
  • The Troubles in Northern Ireland
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives Spring 2002 Thesis for the Cand.Polit degree in Political Science The Troubles in Northern Ireland. A Civil War in the United Kingdom – against all odds? Ingegerd Skogen Sulutvedt Department of Political Science University of Oslo Contents LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 4 MAP OF UNITED KINGDOM 6 MAP OF NORTHERN IRELAND 6 1. INTRODUCTION 7 1.1. THE PROBLEM 9 1.2. METHOD 10 1.2.1. WHY NORTHERN IRELAND IS A SPECIAL CASE STUDY 10 1.2.2. NORTHERN IRELAND: A CASE STUDY 12 1.2.3. CASE STUDIES: LIMITATIONS 13 1.2.4. DATA AND RELIABILITY 14 2. CAUSES OF ARMED CONFLICTS 16 2.1. ARMED CONFLICTS, REGIME TYPES, AND DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE WORLD DEFINED 17 2.2. THEORIES ABOUT ARMED CONFLICTS 20 2.2.1. REGIME TYPE AND ARMED CONFLICTS 20 2.2.1.1. Consociational Democracy 24 2.2.2. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND ARMED CONFLICTS 29 2.3. THE HYPOTHESIS OF AN INVERTED U-CURVE 32 2.4. WHAT TYPES OF ARMED CONFLICTS ARISE? 35 2.5. THE THEORY OF RELATIVE DEPRIVATION 37 2.5.1. RELATIVE DEPRIVATION DEFINED 37 2.5.2. VIOLENCE: WHO AND WHY? 39 3. IRISH HISTORY 40 3.1. ISLANDS AT WAR 40 3.2. FROM THE NORMAN INVASION TO THE BATTLE OF BOYNE 41 3.3. IRELAND: A PART OF GREAT BRITAIN 45 3.4. THE BIRTH OF NORTHERN IRELAND 51 3.5. NORTHERN IRELAND 1921-1960S 54 3.5.1.
    [Show full text]
  • THE IRISH EXPERIENCE of PARTITION John Coakley
    Centre for International Borders Research Papers produced as part of the project Mapping frontiers, plotting pathways: routes to North-South cooperation in a divided island ETHNIC CONFLICT AND THE TWO-STATE SOLUTION: THE IRISH EXPERIENCE OF PARTITION John Coakley Project supported by the EU Programme for Peace and Reconciliation and administered by the Higher Education Authority, 2004-06 ANCILLARY PAPER 3 ETHNIC CONFLICT AND THE TWO-STATE SOLUTION: THE IRISH EXPERIENCE OF PARTITION John Coakley MFPP Ancillary Papers No. 3, 2004 (also printed as IBIS working paper no. 42) © the author, 2004 Mapping Frontiers, Plotting Pathways Ancillary Paper No. 3, 2004 (also printed as IBIS working paper no. 42) Institute for British-Irish Studies Institute of Governance ISSN 1649-0304 Geary Institute for the Social Sciences Centre for International Borders Research University College Dublin Queen’s University Belfast ABSTRACT BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION ETHNIC CONFLICT AND THE TWO-STATE SOLUTION: John Coakley is an associate professor of politics at University College Dublin and THE IRISH EXPERIENCE OF PARTITION director of the Institute for British-Irish Studies. He has edited or co-edited Changing shades of orange and green: redefining the union and the nation in contemporary Ire- Although the partition of Ireland in 1921 was only one of several in which this strat- land (UCD Press, 2002); The territorial management of ethnic conflict (2nd ed., egy was adopted as Britain withdrew politically from territories formerly under its Frank Cass, 2003); From political violence to negotiated settlement: the winding path rule, it was marked by a number of distinctive features. This paper examines and to peace in twentieth century Ireland (UCD Press, 2004); and Politics in the Republic seeks to interpret some of these features.
    [Show full text]
  • 3.IRL the Pursuit of Sovereignty and the Impact of Partition
    3.IRL The Pursuit of Sovereignty and the Impact of Partition | Sample answer During the period 1912-1920, which factors contributed most to the partition of Ireland? (2017) The years 1912 to 1920 were a period of political and social unrest. There was a lot of conflict between Nationalists and Unionists during this time. The Nationalists wanted independence from Britain as they felt that the ties to Britain were hindering their progress in all aspects of life. On the other hand, Unionists feared that if they left Britain, Ireland would be run by the Catholic Church. This was known as “Home Rule is Rome Rule”. Britain had a tough task of trying to maintain the integrity of the North and protecting Unionists while, at the same time, placating the demands of the Nationalists. The Third Home Rule Bill was introduced by Henry Asquith into the House of Commons in 1912. After two unsuccessful attempts to introduce Home Rule for Ireland it looked inevitable that this third attempt would be successful. Unlike previous occasions when the veto of the House of Lords guaranteed that the Home Rule Bill would fail, the House of Lords could now only delay the Bill for two years due to the Parliament Act of 1911. The introduction of the Home Rule Bill led to Unionists launching a campaign to resist its implementation. This was undoubtedly the first step towards the partition of Ireland in 1920. The campaign was to contribute to clear divisions between North and South and play a role in the eventual partition of Ireland.
    [Show full text]
  • An Island Divided: Eamon De Valera, Michael Collins, Arthur Griffith, Cathal Brugha and the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty
    An Island Divided: Eamon de Valera, Michael Collins, Arthur Griffith, Cathal Brugha and the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty By James Webber 1 An Island Divided: Eamon de Valera, Michael Collins, Arthur Griffith, Cathal Brugha and the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty Student: James Webber (s1143271) Email: [email protected] Supervisor: Dr. Joost Augusteijn Second-reader: Dr. Henk Kern Date: December 2012 2 Contents Introduction 5 1. Synopsis and aim of the research 5 2. Overall historiography 5 3. Existing material relating to de Valera and Collins 6 4. Existing material relating to Griffith and Brugha 7 5. Sources 8 6. Methods of analysis 8 Part I: De Valera, Collins, Brugha and Griffith in the period from April 1916 to July 1921 10 7. Eamon de Valera 11 8. Michael Collins 16 9. Cathal Brugha 19 10. Arthur Griffith 23 11. Observations 24 Part II: The Treaty Negotiations in London 27 12. De Valera in the period July – October 1921 27 13. Events during the negotiations 33 14. Collins’ and Griffith’s role in the negotiations 38 15. Observations 39 3 Part III: The Treaty Debates 41 16. Questions regarding the conduct of the plenipotentiaries 41 17. Document No. 2 43 18. The issue of partition 47 19. Observations 53 Part IV: Public Opinion towards the Treaty 56 20. Public opinion in the period April 1916 – July 1921 56 21. The attitudes of the public and the press towards the Treaty 58 22. Observations 67 Conclusions 69 23. The position of Eamon de Valera 70 24. The position of Michael Collins 71 25.
    [Show full text]
  • The Implications of Brexit for the Good Friday Agreement: Key Findings
    An comhchoiste um Fhorfheidhmiú Chomhaontú Aoine an Chéasta Na hImpleachtaí atá ag Brexit do Chomhaontú Aoine an Chéasta: Príomhchinntí Meitheamh 2017 _________________ Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement The Implications of Brexit for the Good Friday Agreement: Key Findings June 2017 32/JCIGFA/01 An comhchoiste um Fhorfheidhmiú Chomhaontú Aoine an Chéasta Na hImpleachtaí atá ag Brexit do Chomhaontú Aoine an Chéasta: Príomhchinntí Meitheamh 2017 _________________ Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement The Implications of Brexit for the Good Friday Agreement: Key Findings June 2017 32/JCIGFA/01 Contents Chair’s Foreword .................................................................................................................................................... 2 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 4 Stakeholder Engagement ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 8 Chapter 1: The Good Friday Agreement and Brexit ............................................................................................... 9 Background to the Good Friday Agreement .....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Learning Objective, Success Criteria…
    Learning Objective, Success Criteria… LO: To understand the reasons for the partitioning of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Success Criteria I can explain how Northern Ireland was created. I can describe the key points to the partitioning of Northern and the Republic of Ireland. I can answer questions about the partitioning of Northern and the Republic of Ireland. Key vocabulary Partition, unionists, Don’t forget at the end of the lesson to self assess (SA) nationalists, on your sticker how successful you have been with independence, border. your learning using Starter Use the Knowledge organiser to write the definition of the words: partition, unionists, nationalist, independence and border in your book. Did people in Ireland want independence? Some groups in Ireland had long thought the country would be better off having its own government, and wanted independence from the rest of the UK. The people who felt this way were called nationalists. Many of them were Catholic, who were the majority across Ireland. Back in 1885, the UK Prime Minister William Gladstone proposed giving Ireland Home Rule - which would give Ireland the power to make its own laws, while staying as part of the UK. But many people, particularly in the province of Ulster in the north-east of the country protested against it. These groups were referred to as unionists, and many were Protestant. They said "Home Rule means Rome Rule", fearing they would lose rights they enjoyed as part of the UK, by becoming a minority in a mainly Catholic Ireland. Partition of Ireland The partition of Ireland was the division of the island of Ireland into two parts, Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland.
    [Show full text]
  • Knirck on Lynch, 'The Partition of Ireland, 1918-1925'
    H-Albion Knirck on Lynch, 'The Partition of Ireland, 1918-1925' Review published on Tuesday, January 21, 2020 Robert John Lynch. The Partition of Ireland, 1918-1925. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019. 258 pp. GBP 59.99 (cloth), ISBN 978-1-107-00773-4. Reviewed by Jason Knirck (Central Washington University) Published on H-Albion (January, 2020) Commissioned by Douglas Kanter (Florida Atlantic University) Printable Version: http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showpdf.php?id=54158 Robert Lynch’s new The Partition of Ireland promises to be the definitive history of a subject that has paradoxically been at the center of much of twentieth-century Irish history without frequently being analyzed in its own right. As has been extensively argued by John Regan, particularly in “Southern Irish Nationalism as a Historical Problem” (2007), the north was often written out of accounts of the Irish revolution by Sinn Féin and later historians in order to sanitize the revolutionary story of some of its violence and sectarianism. While works such as David Fitzpatrick’s The Two Irelands, 1912-39 (1998) took an all-Ireland focus and emphasized the parallel developments of the two Irish states, Lynch tells a more integrated story. He argues that partition was central and foundational to not just the development of the Irish states but also to twentieth-century Irish history as a whole. Lynch writes that “partition as a topic sits very much on the periphery of historical scholarship,” but “seems to define the Irish experience in the twentieth century” (p. 5) and “remains the most vital and dynamic force in modern Ireland” (p.
    [Show full text]
  • THE FORMATION of the NORTHERN IRELAND STATE Dr Senia Paseta
    THE FORMATION OF THE NORTHERN IRELAND STATE Dr Senia Paseta. St Hugh’s College, Oxford Ulster unionist resistance to Irish Home Rule reached a peak during the crisis initiated by the third Home Rule Bill of 1912. Some form of partition looked increasingly likely as the strength of unionist resistance became clear and no amount of nationalist insistence could induce the British government to override unionist objections. The result was the Government of Ireland act of 1920 which provided for the partition of Ireland and the establishment of parliaments in Belfast and Dublin. Northern Ireland was created from the six north-eastern Ulster counties of Londonderry, Tyrone, Fermanagh, Antrim, Down and Armagh. The parliament, known as Stormont from 1932 when it moved to Stormont Castle outside Belfast, was bicameral and closely modelled on Westminster. The main difference was in the Senate which consisted of 24 members elected by the House of Commons in addition to the Lord Mayors of Belfast and Derry who sat ex officio. The Stormont administration was also obliged to share power with 75 local authorities, a requirement which was to constrain central government. Westminster retained control of key areas including defence, peace and war and the Crown, while Stormont was granted powers over domestic policy and only very limited powers over taxation. The financial relationship between Belfast and London was extremely complex, and the ability of subsequent administrations to formulate programmes which were relevant to their own regional economy remained highly constrained. This was to prove damaging to the viability of Northern Ireland, but the state’s long-term survival was not a priority for the British statesmen who formulated the 1920 Act.
    [Show full text]