A century after the Irish Convention, we wrestle with much the same set of problems
ACENTURY ago today, the Irish Convention convened in Trinity College to make what wouldprovetobe the final, non-violent, attempt to find a way to organise relations between Ireland and Britain, on an all-Ireland basis.
Some of the issues the Irish Convention tried to settle are still divisive today: Should partition be temporary or permanent? To what extent should education be denominational? Should Ireland be free to set its own tariffs on imports, or should Ireland and Britain be in a customs union? In a 32-county Ireland, what protection might there be for Unionist interests?
The convention was widely representative. The biggest group in the convention was the Irish Parliamentary Party, and John Redmond was among the members. It was he who had suggested a convention when he rejected a suggestion by the UK government that Home Rule be introduced for the 26 counties only, with the position of the six counties left aside for the time being.
The Ulster Unionists were present, led by one of their MPs, JM Barrie. Southern Unionists also had representation, and their leading figure was Lord Midleton.
There were six representatives of the Labour movement. The mayors of the major cities, including Belfast, the chairmen of a number of county councils, four Catholic Bishops, two Church of Ireland Bishops and the Moderator of the Presbyterian Church were all members.
Seats were allocated to Sinn Féin but it refused to take them up because it said the terms of reference of the convention did not allow for complete separation between Ireland and Britain.
The convention was a unique gathering together of Irish people, widely divergent goals, trying to resolve differences that remain to this day, without direct external involvement.
Although Home Rule had passed into law three years before, the relationship between the Unionist parts of Ulster and the proposed Home Rule government in Dublin remained a matter of deep contention. Ulster Unionists were fearful of a Dublin government adopting a customs policy that would damage their industry, and an educational policy dominated by Catholic thinking. The operation of Home Rule had initially been postponed because of the war but that excuse was wearing thin.
Three years later, when the convention convened, the war was still going on.
Large numbers of Irish soldiers had been killed at the front. Conscription had been imposed in Britain and in most belligerent countries, but not in Ireland. This was resented by some in Britain, as was the 1916 Rising, which had been supported by Germany.
So the atmosphere was fraught, not just in Ireland, but in Britain too.
But Irish Nationalist ambitions were high. Partition was rejected on principle, but few practical ideas had been advanced on how to overcome Ulster Unionist opposition.
Indeed, the new leader of Sinn Féin, Eamon de Valera, told his supporters in Killaloe that if Ulster Unionists did not come in under Dublin rule, they would “have to go under”, and later added: “If Ulster stood in the way of Irish freedom, Ulster should be coerced.”
By attending the convention, Mr de Valera could have tried persuasion, rather than coercion.
John Dillon, the deputy leader of the Irish Parliamentary Party, pointed to the difficulty with the de Valera approach.
He said: “Against such a programme, Unionist Ulster will fight to the last man living; and to all the other horrors of the situation would be added a civil war as bitter and relentless as that which reduced the country to a desert in the 17th century”.
The convention was an honest and serious attempt to reconcile these irreconcilable positions. It was an attempt to get beyond the sterile approach of blaming the British for not coercing Ulster, without facing up to what that would mean, and instead to try to solve the problem by persuasion.
THE convention agreed the solution to the Land Question that was subsequently enacted by the Free State government in the 1920s. It made a serious effort to agree some form of united Ireland. Ulster Unionists put forward a
Eamon de Valera told his supporters in Killaloe that if Ulster Unionists did not come under Dublin rule, they would ‘ have to go under’, and he later added: ‘If Ulster stood in the way of Irish freedom, Ulster should be coerced’
federal approach whereby an Ulster regional government would have substantial autonomy, but within an all-Ireland and UK framework.
Nationalists suggested extra representation (appointed or elected) for Unionists in an all-Ireland Parliament. Unionists were not keen on this because they feared they would still be outvoted, particularly on the issue of tariffs. Unionists wanted to be in a customs union with the UK, whereas Nationalists did not.
Early in 1918, the convention came close to agreeing a majority report with significant Nationalist and Unionist support, but this was stymied by the big German offensive of 1918 which led to a renewed threat of conscription in Ireland. This destroyed any hope of agreement.
Perhaps if a convention of this kind had been attempted in 1911, when Home Rule was first passed, it might have led to a more realistic understanding of the Ulster problem by all shades of Irish Nationalism, and thus avoided the civil wars that ensued.