Why was Ireland partitioned in the 1920's?

Authors Avatar
Why was Ireland partitioned in the 1920's?

Tom Bartlett asserts that the French Revolution of 1789 proved to radical Protestants that '...Catholics had the vital capaces libertatis which republicans had long doubted.' 1 A century later the Protestant Unionist perception of Catholics had regressed in the view of Michael Laffan to their being '...members of a worldwide conspiracy against the beliefs, customs and liberties of Ulster protestants.' 2 Throughout the nineteenth century Ulster protestantism experienced a series of internal and external pressures that eventually metamorphosed a politically and doctrinally heterogenuous grouping into a pan-protestant political front during the crisis precipitated by the third Home Rule Bill in the period 1911-1913. This anti-home rule caucus through dint of its geographical concentration and numerical superiority in the North-east lodged a counter claim to that of the nationalists for self-determination as a distinct people in their own right. They were prepared to resort to armed struggle in order to protect this claim and their position in the union with Britain.

This belligerent response was engendered by the quest of the nationalist Irish Parliamentary Party (I.P.P.) to dissolve the Act of Union with Britain. The Act was lumbered with the bulk of the responsibility for Ireland's socio-economic malaise by nationalist politicians throughout the nineteenth century, though the nature of the connection had changed markedly from one of laissez-faire to an interventionist - sometimes benevolent one from mid-century. This change in tack by London governments of both hues came too late to nullify the negative perception of the political relationship between the two islands that had been instilled in the nationalist popular psyche. The Famine of the late 1840's compounded the deep seated resentment the Irish peasantry, and the Diaspora it created, felt towards the Union. Though as late as 1868 Irish political representation in Westminster ostensibly displayed a party political cleavage similar to that in Britain with 66 Liberals and 39 Conservatives elected, the geographical distribution of the party's seats betrayed another story. The three southern provinces provided 62 Liberals and 13 Conservatives while Ulster returned 4 Liberal and 26 Conservatives. 3 Before the appearance of the I.P.P. a political schism had already developed between North and South. It only needed the prospect of home rule for this polarisation to manifest itself in the familiar guise of nationalism and unionism.

The I.P.P. had its origins in O'Connell's Repeal Association, but its aims were more modest in that a limited domestic legislature was envisaged in the three separate Liberal home rule bills presented to parliament. 4 It was not until Parnell's accession to the leadership of the Irish Party that the prospect of home rule emerged as an attainable proposition. To merit any chance of success Parnell's campaign required positive support from powerful elements in the British parliament. Gladstone's conversion to home rule provided this backing and his motivation and that of most of the Liberal Party was not dissimilar to the Irish nationalists. As early as 1846 Gladstone had written of Ireland thus: '...that cloud in the west, that coming storm, the minister of God's retribution upon cruel and inveterate and but half atoned injustice! Ireland forces upon us these great social and great religious questions...' 5 Due to electoral reform the class base of the Liberal party had expanded and the second half of the nineteenth century witnessed a more interventionist and socially concerned attitude to government on their part. Gladstone's sense of guilt and embarrassment at Ireland's parlous condition was increased by the depredations inflicted by the Great Famine.

The Catholic Church, if somewhat ambiguous in its attitude to the activities of the Land League, was enthusiastic in its support for home rule. Though suspicious of its mainly protestant origins, in 1884 Parnell moved quickly to assuage the Church's reticence by conceding to it primacy in areas of special interest such as education. The obverse of this 'concordat' 6 was guaranteed Catholic support for the home rule movement. This huge up-welling of nationalist sentiment caused by the inflated expectations engendered by Parnell's home rule activities was according to Paul Bew '...too sudden and too dramatic to leave much time for speculation on the meaning of the national soul.' 7 The negative implications of this rush of blood to the nationalist psyche was described by Roy Foster as '...the assumption that the "whole nation" was Catholic...' 8 It indicated a collective amnesia regarding the demographic peculiarities of the North and the political sensibilities of the protestant majority who resided there. The extent of Ulster's difference was ignored by Irish catholic nationalists and perhaps more ominously by the British prime minister and his Liberal supporters. This supposition of cultural homogeneity and the readiness of Parnell and his Party to accept the Catholic Church's endorsement of and participation in the home rule movement, also had a marked effect on politics in Ulster during this period.
Join now!


While Parnell controlled the I.P.P. it was a broad church. He managed to unify nationalists with often widely divergent views into a disciplined and coherent movement through the force of his personality and political success. A. M. Sullivan maintained that: 'The Parnellite party, between 1885 and 1890, was a composite body, whose digestive function was mainly engaged in educating emotional "rebels" into sensible politicians.' 9 This important function was lost after Parnell's fall when the party descended into ten dark years of internecine warfare and it was never recovered. The scions of the new and ascending petit-bourgeoise were ...

This is a preview of the whole essay