Loyalties of two peoples
John Biggs-Davison
Queen's Rebels: Ulster Loyalism In Historical Perspective David W. Miller (Gill & Macmillan E8.50)
Landlord or Tenant? A View of Irish History Magnus Magnusson (Bodley Head £3.95)
John Foster: The Politics of the AngloIrish Ascendancy A.P.W. Malcomson (Oxford 6.50) Nassau Senior perceived two countries in Ireland: 'the province of Ulster' and 'the provinces of Leinster, Munster and Connaught' — 'the South of Ireland'. Macaulay toyed with the idea of partition and a Northern Parliament, in Londonderry. De Valera acknowledged that Ulster was a very special province. She spawned more than her share of High Kings, was in early times geographically separated from the south by forest, bog and lough, was conquered last and was colonized by Protestant Scots.
Ulster chieftains, mythical and modem, faced and fought enemies to the South. Northerners often find more in common with each other, 'across the sectarian divide' than with southern co-religionists. Sir James Craig (oddly described by Dr Miller as 'now Craigavon', although he s long since dead: perhaps one or more of the 'many mansions' in heaven are reserved for the Peerage!) preferred the Nationalist Joseph Devlin (oddly not mentioned by Dr Miller) to that southerner, Carson.
Industrialization linked the north-east of Ireland with Scotland and England. The trade unionists of the Belfast shipyards were as adamant as their employers, and the landed, against being governed and taxed by Dublin, in the interests of peasant farmers. Sir Horace Plunkett warned his contemporaries of the account 'the working class opponents of Home Rule in the North . . . would give of themselves if called upon to defend the cause of Protectionism, liberty, and imperial unity as they understand it.' (Ireland in the New Century, 1904).
The Ulster Volunteer Force of 1912 was a people's army as the para-militaries of today are not. Dr Miller deals firmly with those who attributed 'northern particularism to the malevolent influence of the English in fomenting sectarian division or (a Marxist refinement) a conspiracy on the part of the ruling classes to divide the working class'. On the contrary, there are Leftists nowadays who blame Green Nationalism for dividing the working class and want 'total integration' with Great Britain — after which the class war may be waged in proper fashion! Such is their answer to Dr Miller's question whether the 'two nation' theory means that there are two nations in Ireland or that Ulster Protestants form a distinct nation, as do Scotland and Wales within the United Kingdom. Bonar Law's, and W.F. Moneypenny's, formula was of 'two peoples' in Ireland.
Dr Miller is Associate Professor of History at the Carnegie-Mellon University, Pitts burgh. His Church, State and Nation in Ire land 1898-192Iis first-rate. In his new book, however, by reference to Ernest Geller, author of Thought and Change, he introduces a jarring sociological theme of doubtful help in understanding Ulster's paradoxical loyalties. Dr Miller's history,is written in English; his sociology (or is it anthropology?) can find such expression as this: 'The contracterian myth also conditions the allegiancy patterns of both minorities.'
By 'contractarian myth' is meant the Revolution Settlement of 1688, celebrated every July as though it were more recent than yesterday. The Covenant subscribed by 471,414 Ulstermen and initiated by Mr William Craig's Vanguard harked back to the Civil War, which in Scotland was fought to compel King Charles to become party to a contract between God and people. (One may compare the watchword: 'For God and Ulster'.) The Catholic Confederacy of Kilkenny took a somewhat similar position.
Dr Miller quotes early on Mr Enoch Powell's Kilkeel speech of 1975. It was self-contradictory for a Unionist `to place limits or conditions upon his obedience to the Crown in Parliament'. The Rev. Ian Paisley and Mr Craig, but also Mr Powell's party leader, Mr Harry West, denounced his definition of loyalty. For Mr Paisley, Westminster was odious with 'the Wilsons and Heaths of this world'. Dr Miller does well to recall that the Harold Wilson plan for a United Ireland and a revival of that cause in Socialist circles coincided with a growing acceptance of the Union by Northern Ireland Catholics. Later Mr Powell and Mr Paisley agreed, in the forrner's words in an interview, that 'there could be no loyalty to a parliament and a sovereign authority which has kicked you out'.
In 1972 Mr Craig was no more militant than who could 'imagine no length of resistance to which Ulster can go in which I should not be prepared to support them'. In moments of bitterness some Ulster Unionists may illogically canvass Dominion Status. This would theoretically resolve any conflict of loyalties arising from the concept of 'Crown in Parliament'; independence is, however, the opposite of Union.
Dr Miller explains the mistrust felt in Ulster and the resentment at British spurning of her loyalty. His conclusion is that 'tragedy understood can be tragedy over' come'. But how few English statesmen seri' ously tried to understand. Mr Magnusson's slight and readable study will help beginners in understanding. It is based not on original research or print" ary sources but BBC radio programmes produced by Helen Fry. John Foster appears very briefly as an arch-opponent of Catholic Emancipation. His biography by Dr A.P.W. Malcolmson, of the Public Records Office of Northern Ireland, is based on a Ph.D. thesis supervised by the magisterial Professor J.C. kett. It combines thorough scholarship Wit" felicitous prose. Dr Malcomson shows ils Foster as not only the dogged but defensive assailant of Catholic Emancipation, but as instrumental in the removal of many disabilities. The charge against him, reminis. cent of that made more recently against those responsible for locally recruited units in Ulster, that the militia of his Predominantly Catholic Co. Louth was a testant Militia' is proved 'nonsense'. was the firmest exponent in Ireland of pros" perity by Act of Parliament.' He piloted the Irish legislation that followed upon tile( Lord North Administration's concession 0' Free Trade — not the Free Trade that the, nineteenth century knew but the right 0' Ireland to trade with the Colonies and the Continent in equality with England. , Member for Louth from 1768 to 182,: Foster served as Chancellor the Iris" Exchequer on both sides of the water. Pr the taxes and revenue of the weaker parnifpf to Union were kept separate. He was tiL"' last Speaker of the House of Commons ' Dublin and later Speaker of the Wesunins. ter House. He sat in the Upper House a,5 Lord Oriel. No Irishman could reasonal have aimed higher. Yet Foster had lacke connections in London. He came up in thie world from Drogheda Grammar Schoow" Trinity, the Middle Temple. His was a ileA family of middle-class origins. He marrieud Louth Lady, and his territorial roots an base and the boroughs he owned, and thed web of family connections, patronage all, II jobbery, and the complexities of administration, skilfully unravelley Namier-fashion, by Dr Malcomson, give all unglamourized portrait of Georgian Ire; land, of Foster himself and of the Protestanh Ascendancy that claimed to be the Iris nation. ' the Foster opposed the Union, as d Orange Order, for the sake of the 11;;; testant Ascendancy. He fought 'rear-guard of the Ascendancy' after UnI°. which meant its dependence upon the Minn; land. Foster had supported the 1782 Dec2,:t ration of Rights which removed 0°1 instrument of subordination to Englanas Poyning's Law. He admired Britain butswr reluctant to 'give up the Irish character Malcomson remarks on the 'lovelessness vv. the relationship between British 0°0/ ernments and the Anglo-Irish Ascendant:c and later with Irish Unionism. A 0° recent analogy springs, alas, to mind-.
Previous page
