• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

The Significance of the Irish Convention, 1917

Extracts from this document...


The Irish Convention. Holly Anderson. "The Irish Convention, 1917, had no real significance." Discuss. The Irish Convention was aimed at addressing the Home Rule question and other constitutional problems by involving all Irish parties in the hope of reaching a solution through means of compromise. Held in Trinity College Dublin, the delegates attending consisted of 26 Ulster Unionists, 9 Southern Unionists, 6 Labour representatives, 2 Liberals, and a Nationalist majority of 52. Of these Nationalists, however, none were members of the Sinn Fein Party, and so there was a lack of complete participation from all of the Irish parties and therefore, an insufficient representation of Irish political opinion. This would prove to be one of the crucial reasons why the Convention inevitably failed to accomplish it's original goals, but there were several other reasons why the idea was faced with problems from the start. The Ulster Unionists failed to partake in the Convention constructively and conflict was ripe between the party and the Southern Unionists. Seemingly unresolvable disputes over fiscal issues reinforced the Ulster Unionists' desire for partition. Although it failed to reach any real decisions on the answer to the Irish question, it did result in new problems for the parties involved. ...read more.


As the Ulster Unionists wanted Westminster to deal with Ireland's taxation, and the Nationalists wanted Irish parliament to be able to have their own control, Redmond and conservative Nationalists were keen to accept Midleton's Liberal Convention Policy. It allowed an Irish parliament to control internal taxation, but gave control of custom duties over to Westminster. Initially it seemed like a settlement was finally on the horizon, but more extreme Nationalists, such as Devil and Bishop O'Donnell, rejected the idea and Redmond was forced to withdraw his support. The Nationalists were becoming divided and humiliated in defeat and Redmond decided that he could no longer be of service to the Convention. But he wasn't the only party leader facing a conflict within his own party. Unfortunately for Midleton, not all Southern Unionist members agreed with the idea of abandoning their plans of a Home Rule opposition. Outside of the Convention on 20th February, a group of Southern Unionists met in the Shelbourne Hotel in Dublin, deciding they would not give up the fight for the Union. Forming a new Unionist party called the Southern Unionist Committee, or the 'Callers,' they tried to have the Executive Committee of the Irish Unionist Alliance to stop Midleton's policy, but to no avail. ...read more.


L. Lyons argues that "the convention had two important consequences; firstly it forced Nationalists to realise that Ulster Unionists were not bluffing in their rejection of HR, and secondly it increased Sinn Fein's advantage over the Irish Parliamentary Party." [2.] The Irish Parliamentary party were once again undermined because of their failure to apply Home Rule with immediate affect. Redmond's support for Midleton's policy had cause the initial split in the party, leaving it weakened and an easy opponent for the rising Sinn Fein party. Sinn Fein made a smart political move in avoiding the conference, as their absence was perhaps more valuable to them in the long run than their participation would have been. The Irish Conference may not have worked through the Irish question and constitutional problems it had intended to solve, but it's clear that it did have some real significance. The conference further weakened and helped to destroy the Irish Parliamentary Party, after taking one final chance on a last concession, Redmond had failed once more and died 'knowing that he had failed to deliver Home Rule.' (Rees) The relationship between the Southern Unionists and the Ulster Unionists had been severely weakened and a partition in Ireland was made more likely. [1.] The Unresolved Question - Nicholas Mansergh [2.] Ireland Since the Famine - S. F. L. Lyons ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Other Historical Periods section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Other Historical Periods essays

  1. In this essay, I shall use primary sources to measure the short term significance ...

    It assumes that Lewis will agree with the cynical intentions ('coerce') of which he will be a compliant agent. However, the fact the president wants to avoid violence is clearly important. As is his belief that trade bring peace rather than war.

  2. Who was more important in bringing about the end of Apartheid and minority rule ...

    President De Klerk had the insight and courage to take the decision to change the apartheid state but it was really as much one forced on him by circumstances as one he wanted to take. He surprised South Africa when he set out his proposals for change in inauguration speech on 2nd February 1990.

  1. Discuss the course and consequences of the Arab Israeli Conflict

    It is this very attitude that would in fact give birth to the Palestinian Arab Nationalism which the Zionists themselves will consider inferior, but will underestimate as being 'savage culture'. In 1896, when Theodore Herzl wrote Das Judenstaat (the Jewish State), there was not one mention of 'Arabs' or 'Palestinians',

  2. How and why did the Bolsheviks gain power in 1917?

    to control by manipulating the political and social unrest of the country. Having realised the truth behind the October Manifesto, the Bolsheviks campaigned even harder for a Soviet Government, gaining the support of discontented citizens, whom also understood the underlying flaws in the Duma and new laws.

  1. What was the short term significance of the Amritsar Massacre?

    An assembly of people was fired upon by Dyer's troops, killing 379 and injuring more than 1200. Such act of brutal repression alone was enough to "riddle" moral pretence for British rule into transparency6; but what made the problem worse was that Dyer seemed very proud of what he did,

  2. How successfully did the Labour governments of 1945-51 solve the social problems of the ...

    (J Heb) It is Katherine Woodroffe's view, however, that the welfare state removed barriers to aid and de-stigmatised poverty. A tangible improvement in living conditions and mark of Labour's success is shown in Rowntree's reports of 1936 and 1950, which showed a decrease of primary poverty from 36% to 2% in York.

  1. How effective was the leadership provided by prominent individual nationalists in Malaya?

    who packaged to the peasants socialist ideals by the name of Marhaeism. Ibrahim was ineffective in gaining popular support because he failed to realise that his ideals would not garner support unless he modified them or packaged them differently. In his way of garnering support conspicuously absent was the ordinary Malay peasant.

  2. Consider David Starkey(TM)s and Francis Pryor(TM)s respective versions of the nature and extent of ...

    All this continues to demonstrate the pressures and at least the reality of the threat of invasion by Anglo Saxon. Zosimus writes that in 410 there was a major Barbarian invasion of Gaul and says "The Barbarians from beyond the Rhine, ravaging everything at pleasure, compelled both the inhabitants of

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work